Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Pop quiz hotshot. Armed robbers are using your daughter as a human shield. What do you do? What do you do?   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

18974 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2014 at 4:36 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



455 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-06-12 08:14:50 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.



Good for him.
 
2014-06-12 08:15:27 AM  

starsrift: Let's skip the notion of sides for a moment, sit down rationally, and point out a couple things.
1. Everybody had guns. The robbers, the mother, the father.
2. The robbers were holding a gun to the daughter's head while using her as a shield. Presumably that indicates point blank, unmissable range. And if they actually wanted to carry out their threat, at any time, they could've.
3. The parents shot at the robbers 'as they came through the door'. One was accurate enough to miss the teen, one wasn't accurate enough to hit the teen.

Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen. How could easily it have been the teen that died?

Is that the responsible gun ownership you want to idealize?

Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


Tell me you're kidding.
 
2014-06-12 08:16:28 AM  
Let off some steam, Bennett.
 
2014-06-12 08:16:54 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?


I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.
 
2014-06-12 08:19:00 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


Judge Dadd!
 
2014-06-12 08:19:06 AM  

UseUrHeadFred: I give my daughter the "kill" command. Then I take the dead robber's wallet and have an ice cream cone with his money.


Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
 
2014-06-12 08:19:14 AM  
www.betterlivingthroughbeowulf.com
 
2014-06-12 08:19:27 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.


Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.
 
2014-06-12 08:25:14 AM  

starsrift: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Let's skip the notion of sides for a moment, sit down rationally, and point out a couple things.
1. Everybody had guns. The robbers, the mother, the father.
2. The robbers were holding a gun to the daughter's head while using her as a shield. Presumably that indicates point blank, unmissable range. And if they actually wanted to carry out their threat, at any time, they could've.
3. The parents shot at the robbers 'as they came through the door'. One was accurate enough to miss the teen, one wasn't accurate enough to hit the teen.

Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen. How could easily it have been the teen that died?

Is that the responsible gun ownership you want to idealize?

Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


I'll bite.

In the other thread regarding the gentleman who lost his life confronting the 2 cop killers in Vegas, the gun grabbers kept reiterating that we could only judge his actions based on the end result. Of course, this meant Wilcox was an idiot for confronting the gunmen because in hindsight, they were only targeting cops. It didn't matter that that information was unavailable to the terrified shoppers in walmart at the time.

Using that same gun grabber logic applied to this situation, we come to the conclusion that this guy is a hero and guns saved the day.

I believe that for different reasons of course, mainly because these two scumbag robbers won't be able to terrorize any more victims. Sometimes it's better that these people get removed from the gene pool.
 
2014-06-12 08:27:04 AM  

danielscissorhands: Daily Fail Headline:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

That wasn't very nice of the father to use his daughter as a human shield.


And was it really necessary to continue using her as a shield after the robbers were dead? We'll set aside his decision to shoot dead robbers in the first place.
 
2014-06-12 08:29:49 AM  
phenn:
[Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.]

Tell me you're kidding.


Hey, here in Canada entire street gangs share one gun, or rent one from another gang when it's time to menace or shoot someone.  Things seem to have gone a bit full retard lately (we've had almost ten shootings this month) but overall the supply/demand situation is a LOT different for criminals here because firearms are so restricted.
 
2014-06-12 08:31:09 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.


Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.
 
2014-06-12 08:31:42 AM  
Shoot the hostage.
 
2014-06-12 08:32:26 AM  
I hate guns, wouldn't feel comfortable sleeping in a house that had one, and generally feel they're misused and abused by a majority of the gun-owning population, but I don't see anything wrong in what this father did.  If you break into someone's home, armed, then use one of the occupants of the home as a human shield.....if you get shot, oh well.  It's not like this guy shot someone who just happened to be walking past his driveway.  This was a violent home invasion with his daughter as a hostage.

So yeah, hero tag is well-deserved, as is all the steak and beer the guy could ever consume for the rest of his natural life.
 
2014-06-12 08:34:38 AM  
Here's one of the rare times where I say Score 1 for the gun lobbies.  It's sad that it has to get to this point, but I've been estranged from my daughter for 5 years now, and if I thought I ever would have the opportunity to be a hero to her, I would take it in a heart beat.  Unfortunately, there are still quite a number of nefarious, unbalanced people out there with military grade weapons that will do what they want to do with them.  There's still a need to try to restrict, or outright ban, these items to those people.
 
2014-06-12 08:35:35 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.


Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.
 
2014-06-12 08:35:38 AM  

phenn: Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms [your emphasis]

Tell me you're kidding.


When you can't buy guns, where do bad guys get guns from?
How many robberies - home or storefront - are performed without guns even in the USA?
Sure, organized crime has access to firearms, but they also have access to grenades and other things. So no, I'm not kidding.

I notice you were unable to answer my question of whether or not this was responsible gun use. I can only assume that means that you agree that this is NOT responsible gun use, and hence, as I originally stated, a fantasy for 'gun nuts', though perhaps you disagree with my scatological descriptor of 'masturbatory'. Please enjoy the quibble, but I'm glad we agree.
 
2014-06-12 08:35:40 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.


Then there's this part from the same CDC report:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies," the CDC study, entitled "Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence," states.

Forgot the link to the report:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319
 
2014-06-12 08:38:18 AM  

starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.



With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!
 
2014-06-12 08:39:35 AM  

Spanky McStupid: Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.

Not quite up to "hurr-durr" standards.  4/10


I have a cold and I was awake later than I should have been at the time.
 
2014-06-12 08:39:49 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.


What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?
 
2014-06-12 08:40:38 AM  

give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!


Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!
 
2014-06-12 08:42:12 AM  

Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!


I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.
 
2014-06-12 08:43:09 AM  
Although I'm certain this report won't shed any new light on the debate, it at least gives an idea of what's going on in the world of home-invasion crime:

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1).

These estimates of burglary are based on a revised definition
of burglary from the standard classification in the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Historically, burglary is
classified as a property crime except when someone is home
during the burglary and a household member is attacked or
threatened. When someone is home during a burglary and
experiences violence, NCVS classification rules categorize the
victimization as a personal (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated and simple assault) rather than a property crime
(household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft). In this
report, the definition of household burglary includes
burglaries in which a household member was a victim of a
violent crime (see Methodology).

Highlights

*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.

*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.

*Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be
burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member
was present.

*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for
36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary.
 
2014-06-12 08:43:16 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.

What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?


Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.
 
2014-06-12 08:44:10 AM  

Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!


Yeah, if Dad had just tracked down the other asshole, and finished him off, it would have been an even bigger savings.

In this situation, it really doesn't matter what caused it. The father did what he was supposed to do, and ended the threat to his family.
 
2014-06-12 08:47:33 AM  

Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!


Yeah, no need to have police sharpshooters to rescue hostages either!

We can all gather round the campfire and sing koombaya together, hostage takers and all.

When you show no concern or respect for human life of another, don't be surprised when a protective father decides to do anything he can to preserve his family.

This was a good shoot. The hostage takers sealed their own fate. Don't want to die? How about not pointing a gun at some girls head to begin with.

God, we've got a bunch of pussies in here this morning.
 
2014-06-12 08:49:04 AM  

phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.


You wacked it, admit it.
 
2014-06-12 08:49:39 AM  

Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.


Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?
 
2014-06-12 08:50:42 AM  

starsrift: phenn: Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms [your emphasis]

Tell me you're kidding.

When you can't buy guns, where do bad guys get guns from?
How many robberies - home or storefront - are performed without guns even in the USA?
Sure, organized crime has access to firearms, but they also have access to grenades and other things. So no, I'm not kidding.

I notice you were unable to answer my question of whether or not this was responsible gun use. I can only assume that means that you agree that this is NOT responsible gun use, and hence, as I originally stated, a fantasy for 'gun nuts', though perhaps you disagree with my scatological descriptor of 'masturbatory'. Please enjoy the quibble, but I'm glad we agree.


Well, the 'responsible gun use' question struck me as rather stupid, so I chose to overlook that. OF COURSE breaking into someone's home or using their child as a human shield is not responsible. Clearly, you are oversimplifying in order to make your point.

Where do people get illegal guns? It's a shiatton easier than you think. Bad guys get them from their gangbanger and cartel friends. Very, VERY easily.

And, yet, you still haven't explained to me why you think a father who saved his daughter's life should be disarmed. Because you personally don't like firearms? You'll need to file that one under Too Damn Bad.

He acted swiftly and smartly and took the threat of murder out of his daughter's situation. THAT is the proper use or responsible use of a firearm.
 
2014-06-12 08:51:28 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.

What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?

Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.


My study?

That was a CDC study, ordered by President Obama after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.
 
2014-06-12 08:52:12 AM  
what if they are behind a humid shield?
gh-design.net
 
2014-06-12 08:53:29 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

Yeah, no need to have police sharpshooters to rescue hostages either!

We can all gather round the campfire and sing koombaya together, hostage takers and all.

When you show no concern or respect for human life of another, don't be surprised when a protective father decides to do anything he can to preserve his family.

This was a good shoot. The hostage takers sealed their own fate. Don't want to die? How about not pointing a gun at some girls head to begin with.

God, we've got a bunch of pussies in here this morning.


Yep. Dad saved his daughter. Had to kill someone to do it. Not the happiest about people dying.

Sorry if you are totally happy killing people. I would prefer we didn't if it could be avoided. And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.
 
2014-06-12 08:53:40 AM  
And if you're going to dismiss those results, maybe the NRA is correct in fighting against using federal dollars for these studies? You're going to dismiss the results anyway. Fiscal responsibility and all that.
 
2014-06-12 08:54:11 AM  
Elliot8654:
Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.

Specifics. Seeing as how you're such a better researcher than the National Research Council, I'm sure you can do much better than "Because I say so and it's all an NRA conspiracy".
 
2014-06-12 08:55:34 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.

What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?

Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.

My study?

That was a CDC study, ordered by President Obama after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.


I don't have a narrative.

But I do have a degree in economics with training in econometrics and statistics.

Don't care who ordered that study, it's methodology is mediocre, and it's confidence intervals with its range of data make it almost impossible to draw definitive conclusions.
 
2014-06-12 08:57:28 AM  

Elliot8654: Yep. Dad saved his daughter. Had to kill someone to do it. Not the happiest about people dying.

Sorry if you are totally happy killing people. I would prefer we didn't if it could be avoided. And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.


The chance of them letting her go was also not guaranteed and a father's first and foremost responsibility is to protect his children.

No one is happy about killing. But, if it's them or her and he chose them, I'd say it was the best possibly outcome. They shouldn't have shown up. THEY are the criminals.

Why is that so hard for some people to compute?
 
2014-06-12 08:58:32 AM  

Elliot8654: And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.


why, because logic? as in the hostage takers were acting in a logical way and they would continue to do so?
 
2014-06-12 09:00:02 AM  

Son of Thunder: Elliot8654:
Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.

Specifics. Seeing as how you're such a better researcher than the National Research Council, I'm sure you can do much better than "Because I say so and it's all an NRA conspiracy".


I hope you understand, this subject is practically impossible to objectively study, for several reasons:

1) the nra has lobbied to add major roadblocks and outright prevent research into this matter.
2) There is no way to measure effective "deterrence" by firearm, where someone decides not to commit a crime due to the potential of a firearm.
3) events can only occur once in the real world, making trials of "would a gun be more or less beneficial" impossible, as a retrial of events can not happen.
 
2014-06-12 09:00:15 AM  

phenn: No one is happy about killing.


I must dispute that claim.
 
2014-06-12 09:00:46 AM  
 
2014-06-12 09:00:59 AM  

phenn: Elliot8654: Yep. Dad saved his daughter. Had to kill someone to do it. Not the happiest about people dying.

Sorry if you are totally happy killing people. I would prefer we didn't if it could be avoided. And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.

The chance of them letting her go was also not guaranteed and a father's first and foremost responsibility is to protect his children.

No one is happy about killing. But, if it's them or her and he chose them, I'd say it was the best possibly outcome. They shouldn't have shown up. THEY are the criminals.

Why is that so hard for some people to compute?


I get it.
Dad defends daughter.
Fine.

Doesn't mean I have to like it or be happy about people dying.
 
2014-06-12 09:01:10 AM  

soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?


Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.
 
2014-06-12 09:01:36 AM  

Dimensio: phenn: No one is happy about killing.

I must dispute that claim.


Fair enough. No one sane is happy about killing. I have no doubt this father takes zero pleasure in what happened. Relief maybe, but not pleasure.
 
2014-06-12 09:03:07 AM  

phenn: Dimensio: phenn: No one is happy about killing.

I must dispute that claim.

Fair enough. No one sane is happy about killing. I have no doubt this father takes zero pleasure in what happened. Relief maybe, but not pleasure.


Check out gang violence and how murdering an opposing gang member is a cause for a celebration.
 
2014-06-12 09:03:08 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-12 09:03:24 AM  

Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.


If they had done that, I can almost guarantee you that girl would be dead right now. The second LE shows up, it would have gone from home invasion to all-out shoot out. Seriously. The father acted properly. The criminals did not.
 
2014-06-12 09:03:41 AM  

danielscissorhands: Daily Fail Headline:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

That wasn't very nice of the father to use his daughter as a human shield.


And unnecessary, as the armed robbers were already dead when the father shot them. And why was he invading their home?

Grammar twitch, hell; that headline gave me a farking seizure.
 
2014-06-12 09:04:47 AM  

phenn: Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.

If they had done that, I can almost guarantee you that girl would be dead right now. The second LE shows up, it would have gone from home invasion to all-out shoot out. Seriously. The father acted properly. The criminals did not.


Um, dad made it a shootout.
He just, like Han, shot first.
 
2014-06-12 09:05:15 AM  

phenn: Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.

If they had done that, I can almost guarantee you that girl would be dead right now. The second LE shows up, it would have gone from home invasion to all-out shoot out. Seriously. The father acted properly. The criminals did not.


Where in the article were either the robbers or the daughter described as being dogs?
 
Displayed 50 of 455 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report