Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[Blind groper]

Could you show your work there professor? I must have dozed off and missed it.

Certainly.

Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun.
If, as Seth claims, 80, 000 Americans save their own lives each year by using a gun in self defense, then twice that number (the ones without guns) will lose their lives due to not having a gun.

The number of murders is around 16, 000. The number who would be murdered if Seth's premise was correct, would be 160, 000. Therefore the premise is wrong.

The thing that Seth and other gun nuts have not come to terms with, is that a claim for successful defensive gun use is not the same thing as an actual defensive gun use.

Thus, a survey that works by asking people if they have used a gun defensively will end up accurately reporting the number of people who believe they have used a gun defensively. Not the real number if people who have, in fact genuinely used a gun defensively.

Since 1 in 10 people are deluded to some degree (unable to tell the difference between their imagination and reality) that means 10 million American gun owners who are deluded. More than enough people living their "Dirty Harry" fantasy to totally screw survey results.

[Collector1337]

Could you show your work there professor? I must have dozed off and missed it.

Certainly.

Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun.
If, as Seth claims, 80, 000 Americans save their own lives each year by using a gun in self defense, then twice that number (the ones without guns) will lose their lives due to not having a gun.

The number of murders is around 16, 000. The number who would be murdered if Seth's premise was correct, would be 160, 000. Therefore the premise is wrong.

The thing that Seth and other gun nuts have not come to terms with, is that a claim for successful defensive gun use is not the same thing as an actual defensive gun use.

Thus, a survey that works by asking people if they have used a gun defensively will end up accurately reporting the number of people who believe they have used a gun defensively. Not the real number if people who have, in fact genuinely used a gun defensively.

Since 1 in 10 people are deluded to some degree (unable to tell the difference between their imagination and reality) that means 10 million American gun owners who are deluded. More than enough people living their "Dirty Harry" fantasy to totally screw survey results.

Did YOU just use the word "deluded?"

Talking about yourself I see.

[JimC]

Could you show your work there professor? I must have dozed off and missed it.

Certainly.

Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun.
If, as Seth claims, 80, 000 Americans save their own lives each year by using a gun in self defense, then twice that number (the ones without guns) will lose their lives due to not having a gun.

The number of murders is around 16, 000. The number who would be murdered if Seth's premise was correct, would be 160, 000. Therefore the premise is wrong.

The thing that Seth and other gun nuts have not come to terms with, is that a claim for successful defensive gun use is not the same thing as an actual defensive gun use.

Thus, a survey that works by asking people if they have used a gun defensively will end up accurately reporting the number of people who believe they have used a gun defensively. Not the real number if people who have, in fact genuinely used a gun defensively.

Since 1 in 10 people are deluded to some degree (unable to tell the difference between their imagination and reality) that means 10 million American gun owners who are deluded. More than enough people living their "Dirty Harry" fantasy to totally screw survey results.

Did YOU just use the word "deluded?"

Talking about yourself I see.

Such a clear and intelligent rebuttal of a logical argument...

[Collector1337]

Could you show your work there professor? I must have dozed off and missed it.

Certainly.

Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun.
If, as Seth claims, 80, 000 Americans save their own lives each year by using a gun in self defense, then twice that number (the ones without guns) will lose their lives due to not having a gun.

The number of murders is around 16, 000. The number who would be murdered if Seth's premise was correct, would be 160, 000. Therefore the premise is wrong.

The thing that Seth and other gun nuts have not come to terms with, is that a claim for successful defensive gun use is not the same thing as an actual defensive gun use.

Thus, a survey that works by asking people if they have used a gun defensively will end up accurately reporting the number of people who believe they have used a gun defensively. Not the real number if people who have, in fact genuinely used a gun defensively.

Since 1 in 10 people are deluded to some degree (unable to tell the difference between their imagination and reality) that means 10 million American gun owners who are deluded. More than enough people living their "Dirty Harry" fantasy to totally screw survey results.

Did YOU just use the word "deluded?"

Talking about yourself I see.

Such a clear and intelligent rebuttal of a logical argument...

Yeah. Because thinking tens of millions of hard working, honest Americans are deluded is totally logical and not ignorant whatsoever. Sure okay.

[Blind groper]

Collector

When I say that 1 in 10 is deluded, this is not a specific insult thrown at gun owners. It is a truism that applies to everyone, including non gun owners. But in 10% of any human population, there is a level of inability to separate reality from the internal world we call the imagination.

Just think of the level of delusion that applies to sexual perception. Women who think they are irresistible, and guys who think they are sexual athletes. Delusion is all around us.

I pointed out that this human attribute, applied to gun owners, will inevitably lead to DGU surveys being over stated, which is true.

I have no problem insulting gun nutters. But saying that 10% are deluded is not an insult. It is, after all, perfectly normal.

[Collector1337]

Collector

When I say that 1 in 10 is deluded, this is not a specific insult thrown at gun owners. It is a truism that applies to everyone, including non gun owners. But in 10% of any human population, there is a level of inability to separate reality from the internal world we call the imagination.

Just think of the level of delusion that applies to sexual perception. Women who think they are irresistible, and guys who think they are sexual athletes. Delusion is all around us.

I pointed out that this human attribute, applied to gun owners, will inevitably lead to DGU surveys being over stated, which is true.

I have no problem insulting gun nutters. But saying that 10% are deluded is not an insult. It is, after all, perfectly normal.

The kind of deluded people you're talking about is like when I say "sheeple." It's more than 10%.

[Blind groper]

It is correct that most people are deluded to a degree. For example, about 90% of Americans believe in a deity.

However, when I talk of 10% deluded, I am talking of those who are substantially and measurably deluded. Such people have an active fantasy life, and believe it!

[Jason]

Such people have an active fantasy life, and believe it!

Yeah that's religious people for you.

[Blind groper]

Fakuname
You got me there. Damn!

However, I got the original 10% deluded figure from a web site written by a psychiatrist, and I do not think he was referring to religion.

For purposes of argument, may I say that 10% of any human population will be significantly and measurably deluded apart from religious belief?

[MrJonno]

Fakuname
You got me there. Damn!

However, I got the original 10% deluded figure from a web site written by a psychiatrist, and I do not think he was referring to religion.

For purposes of argument, may I say that 10% of any human population will be significantly and measurably deluded apart from religious belief?

Significantly and measurable?

What's wrong with just saying to be human means to be irrational and deluded, its only a case of how much before you are a threat to yourself and society as a whole

[Gallstones]

[Montana] Castle Law right to use force, does it include killing an intruder?
06.02.13

...referred to as Montana’s “castle law,” which essentially gives people the right to use deadly force to protect themselves or anyone else inside their homes. Butte Chief Deputy County Attorney Samm Cox said it’s been common law in Montana since the beginning of statehood that people can protect their homes by any means necessary.

“In Montana, you don’t have to retreat and you don’t have to call the police,” Cox said.
.......
A person who finds an intruder in their home has the right to use deadly force to protect themselves or anyone else in the residence by having “reasonable belief” that harm is about to be done, Cox explained. Example: Finding a masked man in your home in the middle of the night with some kind of object in his hand could be enough reasonable belief that you are in danger. It would be within your rights to shoot this masked intruder without any legal repercussions.

Reasonable belief doesn’t apply on the street, according to Montana law. If people use deadly force to protect themselves while walking down Main Street, Cox explained that they better be able to prove there was an “imminent threat” of major injury or death.

If a person is in his or her home, even a misdemeanor assault is enough to warrant a deadly force.

Cox explained that the distinction is there, because Montana law views the home as hallowed ground.

“The way the law looks at it is that you should feel safe in your home. That’s a place that no one should be allowed to invade,” Cox said.

Outside the home, a person must prove a justifiable use of force.

Poll (informal, self selected)

Recently, an East Helena man shot and killed an intruder he found in his home. After an investigation, law enforcement determined James Stiffler, 66, was within his rights to shoot Henry Thomas Johnson III, 37, of Helena, under Montana's 'Castle law': right to use force, does it include killing the intruder?

I don't think stand your ground is any clearer or more certain than that.

In Montana, we don't give intruders the benefit of the doubt.

Yo Jonno , FYI “In Montana, you don’t have to retreat and you don’t have to call the police.”
Until after you shoot them of course.

[Gallstones]

Guess what else I can do that you Brits can't, I can blow these words up into a poster

“In Montana, you don’t have to retreat and you don’t have to call the police,” Cox said.
.......
A person who finds an intruder in their home has the right to use deadly force to protect themselves or anyone else in the residence

...and put it in a window on my front porch entrance and not be arrested for inciting or being "racist" against criminals.

Freedom is more than lip service to a concept, It's a way of life. Too bad you guys only get a remnant of that.

[Blind groper]

To Gallstones

Here is a common situation.

Joe Blow gets very drunk and confused. He finds his door key does not work any more, so he breaks the lock to get in so he can go to bed.

Whoops, he made a mistake.
Not his home after all, and the gun crazed occupant shoots him dead.

That by any reasonable standard is murder.

[Gallstones]

To Gallstones

Here is a common situation.

Joe Blow gets very drunk and confused. He finds his door key does not work any more, so he breaks the lock to get in so he can go to bed.

Whoops, he made a mistake.
Not his home after all, and the gun crazed occupant shoots him dead.

Common?
Maybe where you live.

Did you not read where I said intruders don't get the benefit of the doubt?

Drunks aren't excused or forgiven before the fact, they can be shot like any other intruder.
I don't know that an intruder is drunk and fucking stupid. Even drunks--especially drunks--are narcissistic and violent. I don't owe them any special regard over and above any other intruder. In Montana if they come into my home uninvited I don't have to assess sobriety or motive, I can kill them, drunk or sober . You want to test that Blind Groper?

The mistake may be a fatal one. People make fatal mistakes everyday.

That by any reasonable standard is murder.

By any reasoned standard getting so drunk that you are unable to know where you live and try to break into someone else's house is just fucking stupid, especially where people can and are LEGALLY shot dead for making that mistake. The reasonable standard would be: Don't get that fucking drunk. Ever.



Tell you what, I can make you feel all kinds of better. I won't use a handgun, I'll blow a hole in his chest with the shotgun. Happy now?

[laklak]

Your average drunk isn't getting into my house in the first place, it's too well secured to get in without a damned determined effort. Just kicking the doors isn't going to work, and the windows are steel framed with small (about 12 x 18 inch) panes, so crawling through would only work for very small midgets. The alarm system would be shrieking and the dogs would be doing their nut. So I can safely assume that anyone breaking into my home isn't a harmless, confused drunk. Therefore I'll shoot them, and might have to fill out some paperwork the next day down at the cop shop, but otherwise nothing will happen to me. That's because Florida is also a Castle Doctrine state, and makes the legal presumption that anyone in your home without permission intends you harm.

I'm far more likely to use a shotgun rather than a hand gun, though.