And some people think that ...

[SpecialEd]

...for that Bing person
It's all over the news since the last public stabbings in London, but if you are too lazy to look it up.
Here you go...

By the way I understand liberal tactics and I will not do your leg work for you from this point on.
.

That's not how it works, the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

[Bings]

And you think brass knuckles and/or knives are not lethal? Tell that to two people who died here in Lincoln, each after a single blow to the head by bare fists. Oh, you can't. They're dead.

Here are examples of people killed by thugs using just about everything. The only common denominator is that the victims didn't have access to firearms.
http://gunssavelives.wpengine.com/?s=why+i+carry

I think an AR-15 rather outperforms a knuckle duster in the lethality stakes.

A "decent" fence? Like the one on our southern border? LOL! Have you seen videos of police chases when the perp abandons the car and runs away? They seldom have problems clearing fences as tall as they are. I'm 6'6" In my youth I had no trouble clearing fences 4-6 feet tall.

No, like this one Were you clearing those fences with a tv under your arm?

You are assuming, of course, that the AR-15 is laying around, unsecured. Everyone I know who owns weapons keep them in a gun safe...

Not much good in a burglary then, I am not sure an intruder is going to politely wait whilst you unlock the safe and set your weapon up.

You may think you are not, but you are certainly sliding down that slippery slope and someday may find yourself unable to secure your own safety. One only has to look at the EU to see what happens when the police are more concerned about PC and enforcing laws against dissenting opinions, which are now classified as "hate" speech, than protecting the populous from violent attackers.

Albeit a notable annoyance, I don't think that's really relevant to the point. EU countries have very varied levels of legislation around firearms.

IF it were merely about stolen XBoxes I would agree with you. But it's not. Most home invasions rarely start and end with "Hello, I'm an addict and I need your stuff to sell it for dope because I won't hold a job and welfare doesn't pay enough. So, now that I've put all your stuff in my truck I'll be leaving. Thank you, and goodbye! Oh, and after your insurance pays off and you replace your stuff I'll be back to make another withdrawal!". You'll be paying higher insurance rates, if the insurance company doesn't cancel your insurance. Thugs usually BEGIN with assaults that could be lethal, deliberate or not, and also usually end that way.

I'll use the term burglary because I can't find statistics on "home invasions" and I don't know where that lies in the context of US law. Most burglaries are when the occupant is not at the house, most burglaries that are when the occupant is at the house do not involve violence. That is a statistic that from the Department of Justice report that I posted earlier.

As far as your state control vs big corp scare campaign dichotomy, you totally misunderstand the mindset of those who support the Rule Of Law under the Constitution versus some fuzzy Socialist Utopian paradise. If your rule of measure is the abuse of "scare tactics" then the Left wins hands down.

No other country, even those with equivalent levels of gun freedom has the same rabid and torturous debate about gun ownership even though the US has the most conservative leaning populace in Western society. The only difference I can see is that big gun corporations are repeatedly igniting the debate for the purpose of raising their gun sales through fear led propaganda. Which goes back to whatthefunk's early reply because it really is odd to outsiders that either side of the debate wants to continually go over and over this.

[GreyGeek]

This article about mass shootings and the problems associated with the definition, concludes with some sage advice about not being the 1 in 10 million who could be a victim.

It reminds me of a book I read titled "Left of Bang: How the Marine Corps' Combat Hunter Program Can Save Your Life".
It really sharpens your observational skills, and teaches how to pick out people who are not behaving normally for the situation they and you are in. Important lessons if you are part of a security team at your local congregation or other events.

[Bings]

...for that Bing person
It's all over the news since the last public stabbings in London, but if you are too lazy to look it up.
Here you go...

By the way I understand liberal tactics and I will not do your leg work for you from this point on.

You and I will never agree since you have no value for your life or apparently anyone else's or your private property and as I have said several times go for it, it is your life.
Crooks will not have such an easy time at my house.

The mayor is saying there is no reason to carry a knife. He is not proposing a new law (he is not even a lawmaker), it has been law for many years that you cannot carry a knife in public in the UK without a valid reason (self defence not being one). This is the law in the UK on knives. I resent being called lazy when you can't be bothered to read properly anything more complicated than a meme. For the third time, I never said I was against people defending their person.

You are providing a great example of my original post by showing a religious backed intransigence with your views on guns. The thing is, I'm pretty pro gun ownership but if I was to kill someone, I would not want it on my conscience that I did it just to protect the liberty of my DVD player.

[GreyGeek]

I think an AR-15 rather outperforms a knuckle duster in the lethality stakes.

LOL! Sure does!

No, like this one Were you clearing those fences with a tv under your arm?

No, and neither was that thief, who got himself entangled on the fence. Too excited and not careful enough? He obviously climbed over the fence to get in, or he would have left the way he entered. However, most smart thieves case their targets, choose the best way to enter, to clear obstacles, open exit routes for their escape, etc., even before they break in the door. And, they usually chose houses that allow them to drive up to the house, not climb over a fence. That thief wasn't too smart, but he had a lot of gang tattoos on his body, which made him a legend in his own mind.

Not much good in a burglary then, I am not sure an intruder is going to politely wait whilst you unlock the safe and set your weapon up.

You're not to familiar with modern gun safes and firearms, are you?

Modern gun safes open in a couple of seconds. Mine does. I don't have to "set my weapon up". I keep it fully loaded, with one in the pipe. And, it is within my reach 100% of the time, except when the law forbids it, such as doctors offices, banks, schools, prof athletic events, etc... Then it is kept in the gun safe in the trunk of my car. With double triggers or double action you can't "accidentally" fire off a round, or have the gun accidentally discharge if you drop it.

I'll use the term burglary because I can't find statistics on "home invasions" and I don't know where that lies in the context of US law. Most burglaries are when the occupant is not at the house, most burglaries that are when the occupant is at the house do not involve violence. That is a statistic that from the Department of Justice report that I posted earlier.

No other country, even those with equivalent levels of gun freedom has the same rabid and torturous debate about gun ownership even though the US has the most conservative leaning populace in Western society. The only difference I can see is that big gun corporations are repeatedly igniting the debate for the purpose of raising their gun sales through fear led propaganda. Which goes back to whatthefunk's early reply because it really is odd to outsiders that either side of the debate wants to continually go over and over this.

Most defensive uses of guns in the US are not reported if no shots were fired, and some are not reported even if the intended victim discharged her gun.

Statistics are essentially worthless in this debate because just like "mass shootings", the definition depends on the agenda. Even the FBI has changed their goal post from 10 to 4 people killed and now are toying with using 3. The definition of "mass shooting" or "mass killings" or "active shooter" is described very loosely for political purposes, but considering the weaponization of the IRS, AFT, BLM and FBI against half the population, it's not surprising. The anti-gun industry is even worse. For example, http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology/ uses
"Rather than just collecting incidents of death, GVA also catalogs incidents where a victim was injured by shooting or by a victim who was the subject of an armed robber or home invader."
In other words, they count as victims of "gun violence" people are merely present when a thug showed up carrying a firearm. This is shown by the fact that their 72 hour data lists "incidents" where zero people were killed and zero people were injured. That makes it easy to claim 17,434 "incidents" since January 1, 2018. But, how many people reading or listening to the debate, especially on MNM broadcasts, realize that?

With that, I am also bowing out of this discussion. It was an interesting exchange, but probably nothing was said that anyone here hasn't heard before.

[woodsmoke]

Me...dunno...

I killed a lot of people in a jungle far far away... so I have absolutely no desire to repeat the experience...

but, I teach school and I am not going to have any "person" come into my room and spray lead.

Therefore even though the "state" says that there are no "firearms" allowed in a school I have a concealed carry and carry in a variety of ways.

And state law mandates that if a "person" who "attacks a school" is killed by a person who is concealed carry that the conceal carry person WILL BE FINED fifteen dollars for a misdemeanor and lose the cc.

Ok...I save a bunch of kids from death; and I am fined $15 and lose my cc. I'm down for that.

HOW THE F#$% is it that a POLICEMAN...who will SAVE THE LIFE OF A SNOWFLAKE in a "politically correct coffee shoppe"...carrying a gun that can be SEEN by ANYONE...

THREATENS ...the snowflake?

I mean if the POLICEMAN ...PULLS THE GUN...and turns around and SHOOTS THE SNOWFLAKE... I could maybe see that but...

HOW MANY FU#$%^& times has there been ANY RECORD...of a POLICEMAN...with a gun on hip...

pulling it and SHOOTING EVERYONE IN THE PLACE...

LOOKING FOR A SHOW OF HANDS AND A LINK DESCRIBING SUCH...

waiting...waiting...waiting...

seeing none...the nays have it...

The "liberal leftys" are NOT "about being against guns"...they are about being against..."those people over there".

woodjustsayin'smoke

[claydoh]

As usual, this sort of thread just goes down the same path it always does, so I am closing this before it gets there.