I don't like getting death threats

Sort:
Crazychessplaya

Just so y'all can protect yourselves the right way:

WaftingBearofGlowing
sickpuppet wrote:

 You remind me of a teacher we had. She would over-react to things that were not even her concern, getting involved in ways that was always unnecessary. She would try to fit in by asking the girls what they were talking about, then, you guessed it, overreact, and start giving unwanted advice. She tried to control things too much. We all just avoided her. She didn't like this, and would become demanding. She often argued with other teachers. She always wanted to be right. She was always deciding who was good and who was bad. A few people quickly grew to hate her. But she used to say that is the burden of leadership. She would try to mother the boys. Telling us what to do. Sometimes she acted as if she owned us all at some level. A queen we had failed to recognise, or somone who knew what was good for us and not giving her appropriate regard. All very annoying. What I am saying is that it wouldn't hurt to take a look at your actions a bit. You might be adding to the problems.

sounds like one crazy b*itch.

WaftingBearofGlowing
JamieDelarosa wrote:
batgirl wrote:

What "pics" is he talking about??

I worked in downtown Los Angeles for several years.  I found out that one should never try to make sense of what crazy people are saying.  If you understand, it is a sign you are crazy too.

if you think critically about the above statement, then a swat team of ss soldiers will storm your house and kill you. or drag you to a concentration camp.

WaftingBearofGlowing
JamieDelarosa wrote:

Ronald, the criticism is fair.  I have not taken an armed self-defense class.  I learned to shoot by killing things.

I'm not a soldier and I was never in law enforcement.  But I still keep three shotguns and a sporting rifle in the house.  No handguns.  I have gotten rid an inherited deer rifle (.30-06) because it was getting no use.

I had a cheap Chinese-made SKS for a while, but did not like it.  The guns laws in California have become onerous.  I don't register anything.  I pay for ammunition in cash.

There is an old military adage: "The threat is greater than the execution."  One round fired in self-defense would likely send the criminals scurrying.

I am a very unlikely target for anything.  No enemies.  A secure, well-kept residence.  Lighted.  A dog.  Nothing austentacious to suggest there is a bunch worth stealing.  It is unlikely that I would ever confront a well-trained thief. 

I have a natural right to use deadly force, if needs be.  I hope it never comes to that.

silly. people don't use guns anymore. how quaint. 

too messy. too much evidence. too much risk of being caught.

AlCzervik
NomadicKnight wrote:

As for Babytigrrr's comment asking if it is a fact that having a gun in the house is more likely to injure a family member than not, that is completely false. Perhaps because the UK bans most guns she has this perception. Responsible gun owners who have children in the house lock their guns up so children cannot access them. Buy a pistol in the United States and it comes with a free gun cable lock. Most rifles now have a locking mechanism on their safeties. Gun accidents have dropped drastically since such free gun lock programs have started, and educational materials have taught people with children in the house to lock their guns and store ammo seperately, as well as instructing other adults in the household on proper handling. It's the propoganda of the anti-gun crowd who wants you to think otherwise, but the facts are there for anyone to hop onto Google and look up.

As for her saying get better burglar alarms and locks, think of it this way: Most households with such systems or who call 911 can expect a response time averaging 15 minutes or more (In my case over an hour because I live in a remote area). So what are you going to do in that best case scenario of 15 minutes while you have an armed, drug addled criminal in your home and you are defenseless and must rely on the police to show up to save you? Your face is probably going to be appearing in the newspaper, a casualty that didn't have to be if only you had taken the steps to insure your right to self defense.

What's with all the fear of a home invasion where you will be killed? If you live in such a bad area with drug cartels controlling it, why not move?

Yes, home invasions happen.

Get over yourself.

Or, are you the last individual wrapped in the flag that will die there?

Regarding your comment about a gun in the home: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

What I want you to see is that 54% of deaths were committed by an aquaintance, and 24.8% of deaths by gun were committed by a family member.

Having a gun, or, as you do, one in every room, does not ensure safety. If you ever get over your insecurities you may see this, but, I doubt it.


Crazychessplaya

You are misinterpreting the data, Al.

AlCzervik

My statistic is directly from the FBI. And the figures are from deaths in the US.

Is your pie chart worldwide, nophoto?

Crazychessplaya

The chart is from the link you posted. To make everything clear, your 54% and 24.8% figures apply only to cases WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KILLER AND THE VICTIM WAS KNOWN.

Elubas

Maybe there's something psychological about it. Perhaps there is an urge to not feel defenseless, a feeling that you can take control of a situation, even though the low likelihood of the event could, in some sense, be thought of as a defense in itself.

(Well, maybe if you know some violent people mad at you the likelihood might not be quite as low though :p)

AlCzervik
Crazychessplaya wrote:

The chart is from the link you posted. To make everything clear, your 54% and 24.8% figures apply only to cases WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE KILLER AND THE VICTIM WAS KNOWN.

That's the point. Note that the unknown figure in the chart is 44%.

Crazychessplaya

Unknown + stranger = 55.8%. The point is you're more likely to get killed by someone you don't know, than by someone you know.

Babytigrrr

So, I was pretty much right. Why would you expect to be prepared to shoot someone you know?

Maybe guns make family arguments and sudden anger against an acquaintance or neighbour a quick and regrettable fix. Would be an interesting stat to see how many people actually defended themselves or family against a life and death situation within their own home?

Crazychessplaya

I defend myself with words.

Babytigrrr

I want to be clear that I am not against the use of firearms in USA. I don't think the doctrine/culture can ever be changed now... it's who you are... rooting tooting Americans.

AlCzervik

"more likely to get killed by someone you know".

That's what I want NK to see. Many in the US have this absurd notion that their home will be invaded and their life threatened. It could happen tomorrow!

Get a gun to defend yourself!

Again, it happens. Consider your surroundings.

Babytigrrr

Me too Crazy... don't shoot!

AlCzervik
Crazychessplaya wrote:

I defend myself with words.

They often are sharper than knives.

Joseph-S
Babytigrrr wrote:

Would be an interesting stat to see how many people actually defended themselves or family against a life and death situation within their own home?

 I don't know what the statistics are but there is or used to be a gun magazine that had one section every month devoted to snippets about people that were saved by having a firearm available.

AlCzervik

Snippets. Ok.

Joseph-S
AlCzervik wrote:

"more likely to get killed by someone you know".

That's what I want NK to see. Many in the US have this absurd notion that their home will be invaded and their life threatened. It could happen tomorrow!

  If you are that careless and frightened about guns, then yes, you are safer just taking your chances without one.

This forum topic has been locked