no we could not as you would lose horribly.

The numbers are not even close.

IF when looking at gun deaths I get the buckets that contain all suicides, all domestic violence killings, all work place, neighbour and random incident killings. These types of killings that escalate in numbers massively when guns are present and what you get is...

And what you get is the type of random, intentional crime (Realtor being attacked, Home Invasion, type)...

I will out pace you with magnitudes more videos and data. It is not even close.

If you are trying to make an argument thru your example of Realtors (or Librarians or average house wives) being armed to protect themselves provides a higher level of protection you are just factually wrong. By simply now having the gun in the house they are far more likely to die from that gun then stopping a criminal to save their own life, with that gun. That is FACT.



No I do think there ae many "Good Guys" "Gals" who misguided buy guns thinking it improves their safety and of that of those around them (family members, etc). I put it in quotes as that is who you are referencing here. The proverbial 'Good Guy with a Gun' who only gets one with good intent to protect themselves.

I agree that is who they are and what many of them think when they get the gun. Fact is they make themselves less safe and they make their families and neighbours less safe. There is far more chance it will be used in a suicide in the home or in a fit of anger against the neighbour now it is present.

Everyone is less safe due to that.

Actually according to some conspiracy theorists the sign confirms he's a member of the Satanic Illuminati.
The ok sign has various connotations. It can mean simply okay, has Satanic allegations to it and yes has been adopted by the alt right. The NZ Mosque shooter gave the same sign in court.
It's kinda like the word thug, it can have various meanings.
I agree with his acquittal but flashing the sign while posing with the Proud Boys is not a good look for Rittenhouse, even if his actions were self defence.

King Spew's point is that anecdotal videos don't prove that either of you is winning.

Here is a video of a tiger walking through a neighborhood in Houston.



This video does not prove that tigers prowling residential streets is a common occurrence.

Trading anecdotal YouTube's to support an argument is the modern-day dance-off or rap battle.

i don't think that was his point at all. I think Spew was simply saying we don't video spam wars and not that my data via video would not be conclusive.

It is factually true that deaths via suicide, family member, neighbour, colleague, random encounter (those that would fit under "Good Guys with Guns' and not criminals with guns with ill intent prior) are a far bigger cause of death for average citizens than that caused by 'Bad guys with guns'.

This is not in dispute.

So that excerpt you quoted from me is accurate. I am not saying I would do it as a simple chart would be more efficient but 'the number of incidents' is in fact relevant and not in any equivalent to your 'tiger' example.

What's the timestamp for home invasion and rape or the burning of homes with families cowering in them ? I think I missed it.

You're now saying that if someone walks up to your house and hits it with a stick that's grounds to kill them ?

I guess if you're in Texas it is. But it seems pretty vigilante like to me. Self defense is one thing but if you stand on your front lawn in the middle of a riot you're doing exactly what KR did and you're likely to get exactly the same result as far as reaction from the crown. You likely won't be as lucky as he was with the outcome though.

I mean, hey. You do you. I don't mind if I read about you on the news good outcome or bad. We all have to make choices in life.

LOL

Nope.

Now you're talking about private security which is a regulated and trained group of professionals. By definition not vigilantes.

I'm sure Spew wasn't taking sides, only that he didn't want to see hundreds of videos.

/third person

Even though I am a Reactionary Right-wing Psycho (please ask DifferentName for confirmation), I'm certainly not looking to ride on the "Rittenhouse is a hero" bandwagon.

If you were a Catholic during the Spanish Inquisition, you would have been part of the forces that went around burning and murdering Protestants. If you were a Muslim during the Crusades, you would have gleefully killed as many Christians as you could find. If you were a German in the 30s and 40s, you would have been a fully committed member of the Nazi Party. If you were a Saudi national on 9/11/01, you would have either been a part of the hijackers, or, at least, a supporter.

You are neither an uncommon nor remotely interesting person. Millions of humans throughout history have shared your unfortunate and deeply brutal and inhumane religious ideology, brain chemistry, and general personality. If your type of human ceased to exist, the world would instantly become a much better and roughly infinitely more peaceful place.

It may not have been his point, but it was my point - having a YouTube off is a pretty pointless exercise.

But hey, if you want to use suicide data and all other injuries/deaths from a gun and compare it to stopping an attacker, that's fine.

I guess it's worth pointing out that it's not the gun's fault that someone kills him or herself with it, as there are countries without access to guns that have higher suicide rates per capita than the US does.

I guess it takes more time to make a noose or take a handful of pills than it does to load a firearm and squeeze the trigger, so a person might snap out of it during the process after months of consideration, but it doesn't seem too promising that the US would have a lower suicide rate if guns were not available.

Not saying you are, but you seem dismissive he's a possible white supremacist. Now, I can understand this to a degree as no evidence of white supremacy emerged at his trial and his phone was checked for such things. But again flashing such a sign while posing with proud boys, leaves him open to such suspicions and those who suspect such things aren't pulling things outa their asses.
He's leaving himself open to such allegations by appearing in that pic.

I don't engage contrary-to-fact hypotheticals, since they are literally impossible to confirm or deny.

Does that mean you're not going to invite me to your High School Graduation ceremony in June?

I'm saying like the lawyer couple from last year, though not the female, having an AR15 visible can make people think twice about firebombing your house. They all (at least 50 people) just kept walking.

King riots in '92, the only business that wasn't destroyed in that entire neighborhood was the "rootop Koreans" building.

You're in lala land if you think an AR15 doesn't incentivize people to stop, particularly when it's used. What happened when dude with a gun got his bicep blasted off with an AR15? He stopped advancing and ran in the opposite direction. The other guy next to him backed up and placed his hands up. The rest of the crowd dispersed. What happened when pedo guy got hit 4 times? The entire crowd dispersed.

But hey, you do you. If you're rioting and see a person with an AR15 visible but not threatening anyone with it, it's your choice if you want to try and take it from him so you can burn his house down to make a point about how certain groups of people have been treated unfairly.

Hehe, i was not suggesting that.

WHat I was saying to Rococo is that his post missed the point in suggesting my reply was not on point.

I am not going to get into posting video tit for tats or Graph or Scholarly articles, or info graphs, but in each and every case I would destroy LoL if I did. It is fact that the data and facts are on my side and LoL suggestion as a reply to data is that 'oh he can provide his own data too' is a hollow one.

It would be like me saying I have data and scientists on Global warming on my side, and someone suggesting that is not persuasive as they can find scientists and data too that contradicts it.

No. that is not a good counter. You would get trounced horribly.

And my point was you missed the point and made a dumb attempt at rebuttal that failed. See my post just above for why.

This thread seems to have gone off track. I guess we’re no longer discussing how KR got away with cold-blooded murder.

I'm quite aware that firing a AR15 at someone changes their behavior.

I thought we were discussing the pros and cons of vigilantism and I was pointing out how you seem to be inflating both the risk and the reward of taking the law into your own hands when it comes to threatening and using deadly force.

The fact that a person with a rational position such as myself is seen by you as a rioter is yet another reason why random people (people like you and KR) shouldn't play with guns. You're not intellectually or emotionally fit for it. Sorry to tell you but don't feel bad. Most of us aren't.

LOL

We're justifying the next one. Don't go away just yet.

I had some time to read a bit on SF. Seems at least some of the victims request counseling so they don't have to raise kids alone when the father is in jail.

I'm finding this trend interesting. At the end of the day the DA represents the victims and not the conservative media hosts who are trying to monetize their plight.

But you were correct to point out that prosecutors do sometimes drop serious charges. I'll be damned. That's not something I was every familiar with.

Like I said, just the mere presence does.

Once we define vigilantism to be the same definition, then we can discuss the pros and cons.

Hint: no scenario I mentioned is being a vigilante. I can't help it if you twist things into some other scenario and then argue against a scenario you made up.

You call me a vigilante because I merely illustrate self-defense scenarios, so it's fair, by your own brush, to call you a rioter because you show indifference, at best, to anarchy and rioting.

Everything I stated is rational, common sense: Don't go to a riot with an AR15; don't attack a person with an AR15; if a riot comes to you and your life is placed in danger, it is up to you if you want to defend your life.

I have never been dismissive of that possibility. I literally said in an earlier post that I don't know if KR is White Supremacist or not.

For example:
And this:


I agree.

We’re discussing the attempted murder by some thugs that was thwarted by a red blooded American hero.

I understand your point.

I'll reiterate from the start of when I posted in this thread that crazy and depressed/suicidal people shouldn't own one. And yes, there are a lot of those kinds of people, but the gun doesn't go bang by itself.

What I'm asking for you is to prove that access to guns increases suicide rates. Just because a gun is one of the favored methods of suicide in America, it does not mean that there would be fewer suicides if they didn't exist. Are you suggesting that the countries that have more suicides per capita than the US would be even higher if they had access to guns?

If you want to assert that suicide by gun is the method with the highest success rate, I wouldn't disagree with that.

The claim is not that guns cause the suicide rate to go up, but rather the completed suicide rate to go up. Suicide is often an impulsive action, and because you are more likely to be successful in killing yourself if you use a gun rather than other other methods (eg drugs), it is generally thought that more gun ownership increases death by suicide. Here is a meta-analysis showing that access to firearms is associated with a higher risk of killing yourself.