Knife wielding man kicks in door of family's home, but he's no match for dads rifle

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Surtur

-Pr-
That's... Nice, I guess?

Surtur
Originally posted by -Pr-
That's... Nice, I guess?

thumb up

Bashar Teg
thread title change?

The Official "Toughguy Gun Story Cancels Out Escalated Pattern of Mass-Shootings" Thread.

Surtur
It doesn't cancel out anything, it is what it is.

Firefly218
Who knows what would have happened if instead of a knife, the intruder had a gun.

Quick Question Surt, would you rather your intruder be armed with a knife or a gun?

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
Who knows what would have happened if instead of a knife, the intruder had a gun.

Quick Question Surt, would you rather your intruder be armed with a knife or a gun?

If I have no weapon? I have no preference.

If I have a gun? A knife would surely be preferable for them to have. So I could shoot them with my gun.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
If I have no weapon? I have no preference.

If I have a gun? A knife would surely be preferable for them to have. No you can't compare on unequal footing. You can't have a gun yourself and expect your enemies to not be equal.

Situation 1: You and your intruder are both armed with knives

Situation 2: You and your intruder are both armed with guns

Surtur
I want the gun.

Surtur
I have back issues. If he has a knife and I have one too I have to get up close and get involved in a physical struggle.

My chances of survival are greater in the gun vs gun scenario.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
I want the gun. The violence is more likely to escalate with guns. Guns depersonalize killing, all you gotta do is pull a trigger. The likelihood that violence occurs is MUCH higher if everyone has guns.

Psychologically, using a knife is more personal. Knives are intimate violence and you must have agency to use one. Everyone armed with knives is less likely to result in violence.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/950/175/e57.jpg

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
The violence is more likely to escalate with guns. Guns depersonalize killing, all you gotta do is pull a trigger. The likelihood that violence occurs is MUCH higher if everyone has guns.

Psychologically, using a knife is more personal. Knives are intimate violence and you must have agency to use one. Everyone armed with knives is less likely to result in violence.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/950/175/e57.jpg

Nope, for me my chances of survival are higher with a gun vs gun scenario. I know that kills your narrative, but oh well lol.

Robtard
Originally posted by Firefly218
Who knows what would have happened if instead of a knife, the intruder had a gun.

Quick Question Surt, would you rather your intruder be armed with a knife or a gun?

^

laughing out loud at crushed narrative. Poor Surt

Surtur
But the narrative wasn't crushed...lol.

-Pr-
You people and your narratives. Tsk. Tsk.

Surtur
Originally posted by -Pr-
You people and your narratives. Tsk. Tsk.

I at least expect people to make sense. "This could have been a lot worse if the dad had no gun" is in no way crushed by "it could have been worse if the intruder had a gun" lol.

Those are merely...two things that are true lol. They do not cancel each other out.

And for me personally in *any* physically confrontation I am at a disadvantage.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
A knife would surely be preferable for them to have. Right here is where this thread became irrelevant.

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
Right here is where this thread became irrelevant.

Lol, and this is why you aren't to be taken seriously.

quanchi112
Another thread backfire on poor squirt.

Kurk
What is Robtard's stance on this? Was this criminal a victim? Could he have been rehabilitated?

Surtur
Originally posted by quanchi112
Another thread backfire on poor squirt.

Lmao.

Surtur
Originally posted by Kurk
What is Robtard's stance on this? Was this criminal a victim? Could he have been rehabilitated?

IMO this is a story with a happy ending. A man protected his family and a violent criminal is off the streets.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Surtur
Lmao. Poor squirt has back issues.

Surtur
Originally posted by quanchi112
Poor squirt has back issues.

I do, yeah.

Scribble
America has a violence problem even away from the guns, to be fair. If you magicked all the guns away and people only had knives, they'd still have people going mental, trying to stab as many people as possible. There'd be a lot less deaths, though. A lot less. But guns can't be magicked away, so in that case, I guess I would prefer to have a gun in the violent, crazy lands of America. Maybe.

Surtur
Originally posted by Scribble
America has a violence problem even away from the guns, to be fair. If you magicked all the guns away and people only had knives, they'd still have people going mental, trying to stab as many people as possible. There'd be a lot less deaths, though. A lot less. But guns can't be magicked away, so in that case, I guess I would prefer to have a gun in the violent, crazy lands of America. Maybe.

Indeed, and especially for someone like me I can't physically restrain someone or knife fight them. I can fire a gun though.

And I sure as hell am not going to hope that some dude breaking into my home with a knife just doesn't have the "agency" to use it on me.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Firefly218
Who knows what would have happened if instead of a knife, the intruder had a gun.

Quick Question Surt, would you rather your intruder be armed with a knife or a gun?

oh well, so much for that narrative laughing out loud

https://i.imgur.com/1C23tmo.gif

-Pr-
Originally posted by Surtur
I at least expect people to make sense. "This could have been a lot worse if the dad had no gun" is in no way crushed by "it could have been worse if the intruder had a gun" lol.

Those are merely...two things that are true lol. They do not cancel each other out.

And for me personally in *any* physically confrontation I am at a disadvantage.

That line in the OP isn't exactly helpful.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
oh well, so much for that narrative laughing out loud

https://i.imgur.com/1C23tmo.gif

Funny thing is I think you truly believe this lol.

Surtur
Originally posted by -Pr-
That line in the OP isn't exactly helpful.

Helpful towards...what?

And that *still* doesn't explain how saying one true thing somehow negates another true thing lol.

Bashar Teg
"THANK GOD for muh guns" -OP

just couldn't hold it in, could you roll eyes (sarcastic)

cdtm
Originally posted by Scribble
America has a violence problem even away from the guns, to be fair. If you magicked all the guns away and people only had knives, they'd still have people going mental, trying to stab as many people as possible. There'd be a lot less deaths, though. A lot less. But guns can't be magicked away, so in that case, I guess I would prefer to have a gun in the violent, crazy lands of America. Maybe.

Pretty much this:

3YqXKrAyfEE

Scribble
Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, and especially for someone like me I can't physically restrain someone or knife fight them. I can fire a gun though.

And I sure as hell am not going to hope that some dude breaking into my home with a knife just doesn't have the "agency" to use it on me. Are you able to own a gun? If so, do you, and if you don't, why not? If you can't own one, why not? Interested to know more about American gun policy.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"THANK GOD for muh guns" -OP

just couldn't hold it in, could you roll eyes (sarcastic)

Actually, I said thank god this man had a gun. He and his family might be dead if he didn't.

If that sets you off...well, that's all kinds of hilarious.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
Actually, I said thank god this man had a gun. He and his family might be dead if he didn't.

If that sets you off...well, that's all kinds of hilarious.

no, it was you establishing a narrative in the OP, instead of simply posting a 'matter of fact' story .

sorry, guy. :')

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
Actually, I said thank god this man had a gun. He and his family might be dead if he didn't.

If that sets you off...well, that's all kinds of hilarious. He and his family might be dead if the intruder had a gun. THANK GOD the intruder only had a knife

Scribble
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no, it was you establishing a narrative in the OP, instead of simply posting a 'matter of fact' story .

sorry, guy. :') This is true, doesn't change the situation though.

Surtur
Originally posted by Scribble
Are you able to own a gun? If so, do you, and if you don't, why not? If you can't own one, why not? Interested to know more about American gun policy.

I can own a gun. I do not have one, but I am thinking about getting one. My aunt owns guns and this upcoming Thanksgiving I'm going to be testing some out there.

I haven't gotten one yet because I guess I thought I didn't need it, I told myself this neighborhood was bad, but there were worse places in Chicago. That is still true, but not a good enough reason to stay vulnerable.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no, it was you establishing a narrative in the OP, instead of simply posting a 'matter of fact' story .

sorry, guy. :')

Like I said: I said thank god he had a gun he and his family might be dead if he didn't.

If that sets you off? Deal with it lol.

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
He and his family might be dead if the intruder had a gun. THANK GOD the intruder only had a knife

Okay, so what? Lol. This doesn't negate the fact that this could have(and most likely would have) turned out a lot worse if he didn't have a gun.

You saying it could have been worse if he had a gun does not make that any less true lol. Tell me you realize this. Both are true.

cdtm
Originally posted by Scribble
Are you able to own a gun? If so, do you, and if you don't, why not? If you can't own one, why not? Interested to know more about American gun policy.

Biggest determining factor for carry on's is where you live. District of Columbia, New York City, or Chicago and you can pretty forget about owning a carry and conceal permit. In somewhere like Vermont, you might own 40 guns and sleep with one under your pillow (Knew a guy who did this..)

Next factor is criminal record.. For example, if you don't have a permit and fire a handgun, even if you get off on an AA (Accelerate rehabilitation) which acts as a one time "get out of jail free" card and wipes your record, you still won't be permitted to ever own a gun (Unsure if it's that state, or anywhere. As we're talking a federal crime being required, I'd guess no guns period in the US..)

Long barrel guns strictly for home defense are a different story, and also for hunting and such, because you can't exactly stick one under your shirt or easily carry it around.

Scribble
Originally posted by Surtur
I can own a gun. I do not have one, but I am thinking about getting one. My aunt owns guns and this upcoming Thanksgiving I'm going to be testing some out there.

I haven't gotten one yet because I guess I thought I didn't need it, I told myself this neighborhood was bad, but there were worse places in Chicago. That is still true, but not a good enough reason to stay vulnerable. If you have physical issues, owning one is probably a smart idea. Home invasion scares the shit out of me, but even in London we don't have much of an issue with it. Even if someone did break in, they'd probably get scared off by my dog. But in America, the level of violence is much higher, the threat much higher too. So for you, owning a gun is probably the best idea.

Surtur
Originally posted by Scribble
This is true, doesn't change the situation though.

It is just sad how everything sets them off here. Saying something as simple and true as "thank god he had that gun or it would have been worse" somehow flips a switch in the brains of people to make them think this is a call to defend their anti-gun stance lol. Like I personally shoved a hot poker in their eye by acknowledging in this scenario things would have been worse if he wasn't armed.

I just can't take it seriously lol. Not when something that shouldn't be controversial is suddenly seen as such.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Scribble
This is true, doesn't change the situation though.

not the situation of the article, but if a thread's topic is tainted by narrative, it should be pointed out and scrutinized.

not only does it imply that having a gun equals always having upper hand, but also some underlying assumption that this is a typical home invasion that everyone should be prepared for with firearms, when it's actually atypical. so in this scenario, it worked out. in most scenarios, people rob you when you're not home and probably are unarmed because they were watching you for days and know that nobody's home.

Surtur
Originally posted by Scribble
If you have physical issues, owning one is probably a smart idea. Home invasion scares the shit out of me, but even in London we don't have much of an issue with it. Even if someone did break in, they'd probably get scared off by my dog. But in America, the level of violence is much higher, the threat much higher too. So for you, owning a gun is probably the best idea.

Indeed, and it's why if it's gun vs gun or knife vs knife...my best option is still gun vs gun.

And now you could also say the same about: most women and most elderly folk.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
not the situation of the article, but if a thread's topic is tainted by narrative, it should be pointed out and scrutinized.

not only does it imply that having a gun equals always having upper hand, but also some underlying assumption that this is a typical home invasion that everyone should be prepared for with firearms, when it's actually atypical. so in this scenario, it worked out. in most scenarios, people rob you when you're not home and probably are unarmed because they were watching you for days and know that nobody's home.

Lol no, these are the assumptions YOU make to justify your own responses. I never said a gun always means the upper hand.

I think more people here are starting to see how you pull BS like this lol. You literally invented a narrative here. All the while *you* are telling someone else what I did or did not truly mean to imply, lol.

If saying "thank god he was armed" taints a topic about a guy saving his family with a gun...that's just lunacy lol.

Scribble
Originally posted by cdtm
Biggest determining factor for carry on's is where you live. District of Columbia, New York City, or Chicago and you can pretty forget about owning a carry and conceal permit. In somewhere like Vermont, you might own 40 guns and sleep with one under your pillow (Knew a guy who did this..)

Next factor is criminal record.. For example, if you don't have a permit and fire a handgun, even if you get off on an AA (Accelerate rehabilitation) which acts as a one time "get out of jail free" card and wipes your record, you still won't be permitted to ever own a gun (Unsure if it's that state, or anywhere. As we're talking a federal crime being required, I'd guess no guns period in the US..)

Long barrel guns strictly for home defense are a different story, and also for hunting and such, because you can't exactly stick one under your shirt or easily carry it around. Interesting info, cheers man. It does seem from this that the laws are pretty strict, then? Much stricter than we're lead to believe.

cdtm
Originally posted by Surtur
It is just sad how everything sets them off here. Saying something as simple and true as "thank god he had that gun or it would have been worse" somehow flips a switch in the brains of people to make them think this is a call to defend their anti-gun stance lol. Like I personally shoved a hot poker in their eye by acknowledging in this scenario things would have been worse if he wasn't armed.

I just can't take it seriously lol. Not when something that shouldn't be controversial is suddenly seen as such.

Interesting thing I noticed:

Israeli's are some of the most pro gun ownership people on the planet. They're like poster boys for the NRA.

American Jews are generally anti gun ownership, espcially in the cities.

Not sure why this is.. Maybe because in the case of a united country, guns keep them alive, while in a city even if all jewish people unified with guns against the anti semites of a city, they'd be swamped by sheer numbers? So, in that case argue for no guns for anybody?

Just a guess, I dunno what it could really be.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
It is just sad how everything sets them off here. Saying something as simple and true as "thank god he had that gun or it would have been worse" somehow flips a switch in the brains of people to make them think this is a call to defend their anti-gun stance lol. Like I personally shoved a hot poker in their eye by acknowledging in this scenario things would have been worse if he wasn't armed.

I just can't take it seriously lol. Not when something that shouldn't be controversial is suddenly seen as such. I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that this scenario could've been so much worse if the intruder had a gun...

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that this scenario could've been so much worse if the intruder had a gun...

But...I did. I said before: one true thing does not negate another true thing.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
But...I did. I said before: one true thing does not negate another true thing.

good, so we agree that the "be prepared for this specific situation and get a rifle like dad" narrative is kinda dumb. THANK GOD

Scribble
Originally posted by Firefly218
I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that this scenario could've been so much worse if the intruder had a gun... If you made all guns illegal in the US, then the chances of the person breaking and entering (a criminal) having a gun wouldn't go down as much of the chance of the person in the home (a law-abiding citizen) having a gun. Which would be a lot more dangerous a situation.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
good, so we agree that the "be prepared for this specific situation and get a rifle like dad" narrative is kinda dumb. THANK GOD

^^Again, I said thank god this man had a rifle because it allowed him to protect his family. You are throwing a fit over that. It's not dumb for me to say it is good this man had a firearm. You are either trolling or a lunatic lol.

cdtm
Originally posted by Firefly218
The violence is more likely to escalate with guns. Guns depersonalize killing, all you gotta do is pull a trigger. The likelihood that violence occurs is MUCH higher if everyone has guns.

Psychologically, using a knife is more personal. Knives are intimate violence and you must have agency to use one. Everyone armed with knives is less likely to result in violence.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/950/175/e57.jpg

I think you're underestimating just how bloodthirsty some people are.

Unfortunately, where you or I might be repulsed at the idea, someone else might get excited.. (If you're breaking into someone's home and carrying in a knife, and making threats, I'd assume you're likely the latter..)

Rockydonovang
a knife is way harder to kill with than a gun.

cdtm
Sure, but he's saying psychologically they're harder to use.

Not if you're a sadistic monster, they're not. Like a thug with a knife breaking into your home and making threats might be.

Firefly218

Bashar Teg
if i was paranoid over knife wielding home invaders, i'd sooner have a machete or katana. something that simply cannot be reasoned away as "probably fake", "he's just bluffing", "i bet it's not loaded". something that i dont have to go through a process of unlocking a case and loading bullets, while the knife-weilder presumably remains courteous and waits for me to finish.

cdtm
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if i was paranoid over knife wielding home invaders, i'd sooner have a machete or katana. something that simply cannot be reasoned away as "probably fake", "he's just bluffing", "i bet it's not loaded". something that i dont have to go through a process of unlocking a case and loading bullets, while the knife-weilder presumably remains courteous and waits for me to finish.

Better off with a bat, if you want visable.

Much harder to avoid/knock away/block.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by cdtm
Better off with a bat, if you want visable.

Much harder to avoid/knock away/block.

i think a large blade is way more scary than a bat. imho the goal should be to make them rethink their actions and gtfo.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if i was paranoid over knife wielding home invaders, i'd sooner have a machete or katana. something that simply cannot be reasoned away as "probably fake", "he's just bluffing", "i bet it's not loaded". something that i dont have to go through a process of unlocking a case and loading bullets, while the knife-weilder presumably remains courteous and waits for me to finish.

I'll still go with a gun, thanks. I have no small kids in my house so I don't need to keep the thing locked in a safe.

Frankly I don't care if someone thinks I'm just bluffing with my gun, they will find they are wrong once the bullet enters their body.

It's not even about being paranoid. It's about it not being worth the risk. It's not worth it to risk. I am going to assume you intend to do me harm if you break into my home. I am not going to assume any weapon you have is just for show and you won't have the balls to use it.

The solution here is not to break into someone else's home, and to accept that if you do one of the consequences is...you die. Don't play stupid games and you can avoid winning stupid prizes.

Nothing I have typed should be offensive or controversial to anyone, and there is a deep sadness inside anyone who finds it offensive or controversial.

Surtur
And just to note, to nip in the butt any notion any misguided souls might have had about this topic: it wasn't about negating any tragedy with a gun. This doesn't negate it. Just like any tragedy doesn't negate instances where firearms save lives.

It is 100% irrelevant to me if someone decided to see this topic, get triggered, and make assumptions. It is 100% irrelevant to me if someone saw this, got butthurt, and felt they needed to somehow defend their stance on guns. There were no narratives on either side crushed here, this is a fact. What this is...is a story where a firearm came in handy, a story where without it things would have been a lot worse. No more, no less. That is not up for debate, it will never be up for debate, lol. Have a nice day folks, and be safe.

cdtm
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i think a large blade is way more scary than a bat. imho the goal should be to make them rethink their actions and gtfo.

I dunno, bats are the icon of broken legs and bookie beat downs. wink

Maybe a bowie knife than. Big enough to make a statement, but less unwieldy then a machette.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
And just to note, to nip in the butt any notion any misguided souls might have had about this topic: it wasn't about negating any tragedy with a gun. This doesn't negate it. Just like any tragedy doesn't negate instances where firearms save lives.

It is 100% irrelevant to me if someone decided to see this topic, get triggered, and make assumptions. It is 100% irrelevant to me if someone saw this, got butthurt, and felt they needed to somehow defend their stance on guns. There were no narratives on either side crushed here, this is a fact. What this is...is a story where a firearm came in handy, a story where without it things would have been a lot worse. No more, no less. That is not up for debate, it will never be up for debate, lol. Have a nice day folks, and be safe. Why does this story deserve a whole thread while the hundreds of stories where a gun ruined lives don't deserve threads? You have a narrative, don't say you don't have a narrative. Posting this thread is proof you have a narrative.

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
I dunno, bats are the icon of broken legs and bookie beat downs. wink

Maybe a bowie knife than. Big enough to make a statement, but less unwieldy then a machette.

What if you have a bat and someone breaks into your house with a gun?

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
Why does this story deserve a whole thread while the hundreds of stories where a gun ruined lives don't deserve threads? You have a narrative, don't say you don't have a narrative. Posting this thread is proof you have a narrative.

Lol oh please dude, just stop with your bullshit. We had people posting stoires here about muslims being murdered...AFTER a muslim terror attack thread in the past. There was a narrative there too : they aren't just terrorists, they can be victims. That was the point of the thread. I didn't see you calling that out.

I posted the topic because...I can. If there is a narrative, it's that guns sometimes help. Why does that bother you? Why does a true statement bug you? Guns being helpful doesn't negate a tragedy or anything. It is what it is.

Surtur
I mean seriously someone explain the CONTROVERSY over "thank god he had a gun who knows what could have happened if he did not"?

Why does this set leftists off? I don't even get it. Guns are not good. Guns are not evil. Where is the narrative that sets people off? How does a narrative of "these people are alive because the dad had a firearm" cause any strife? Makes no sense.

What is wrong with this country when even saying that is controversial? Who wants to live in a country like that? Firefly? Do you? Do you want to live in a country where what I just said PISSES people off? I would be genuinely shocked if you truly do.

Emperordmb
Yeah I'm gonna be honest, if I have a gun in my own house, I'm gonna likely be on superior or at least even footing with whatever ******* breaks in... and can ward off an attack without getting in striking distance of them if they don't have a gun... If I can't get a gun, and some ******* who illegally got a gun busts into my house I'm ****ed.

I'd feel much safer with a gun than with the possibility that someone's gonna break into my house with a melee weapon and I'm gonna have to engage them in melee, or with the possibility that they're gonna have a gun and I'm not.

People saying guns should be available for self-defense aren't talking out of their asses, it's a pretty reasonable thing to want.

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah I'm gonna be honest, if I have a gun in my own house, I'm gonna likely be on superior or at least even footing with whatever ******* breaks in... and can ward off an attack without getting in striking distance of them if they don't have a gun... If I can't get a gun, and some ******* who illegally got a gun busts into my house I'm ****ed.

I'd feel much safer with a gun than with the possibility that someone's gonna break into my house with a melee weapon and I'm gonna have to engage them in melee, or with the possibility that they're gonna have a gun and I'm not.

People saying guns should be available for self-defense aren't talking out of their asses, it's a pretty reasonable thing to want.

I also think people need to not only consider themselves, but others. People going "get a bat or machete!"...okay, say that to a 70 yr. old lady who is concerned for her safety. Tell her to get a bat or a machete.

Tell someone with any kind of physical disability "machete time".

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol oh please dude, just stop with your bullshit. We had people posting stoires here about muslims being murdered...AFTER a muslim terror attack thread in the past. There was a narrative there too : they aren't just terrorists, they can be victims. That was the point of the thread. I didn't see you calling that out.

I posted the topic because...I can. If there is a narrative, it's that guns sometimes help. Why does that bother you? Why does a true statement bug you? Awesome! With a little help, you have now admitted that you have a narrative!

The next step is understanding why you have the wrong narrative.

While yes guns have been used positively in the past, the overwhelming majority of gun use has ended lives, ruined lives or maimed lives.

So when you push the "guns are positive too!" message, you are justifying the overwhelming majority of negativity generated by guns to support the slim minority of positivity generated by guns. And that's just disproportionate.

Essentially what you're doing is celebrating that opioids made 1 person happy. Sure, those opioids may have made that person happy, but those same opioids have destroyed thousands of lives so...

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by cdtm
I dunno, bats are the icon of broken legs and bookie beat downs. wink

Maybe a bowie knife than. Big enough to make a statement, but less unwieldy then a machette.

i just prefer a large sharp blade because i think it's more universally scary, but if you prefer a bat that works just fine as well. nobody would be like "oh that's probably one of those hollywood rubber bats".

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Firefly218
Why does this story deserve a whole thread while the hundreds of stories where a gun ruined lives don't deserve threads? You have a narrative, don't say you don't have a narrative. Posting this thread is proof you have a narrative.

^^truth

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
Awesome! With a little help, you have now admitted that you have a narrative!

The next step is understanding why you have the wrong narrative.

While yes guns have been used positively in the past, the overwhelming majority of gun use has ended lives, ruined lives or maimed lives.

So when you push the "guns are positive too!" message, you are justifying the overwhelming majority of negativity generated by guns to support the slim minority of positivity generated by guns. And that's just disproportionate.

Essentially what you're doing is celebrating that opioids made 1 person happy. Sure, those opioids may have made that person happy, but those same opioids have destroyed thousands of lives so...

Lol this is just insanity though, so why do I get the feeling it will be "bingo'ed" multiple times.

The narrative is "thank god this guy had a gun, things could have been worse". THAT is the narrative. Guns can be helpful. It was not, as people tried to suggest: that this negates tragedies with guns or anything of the sort.

No, pointing out they can help is *not* in any way justifying negative uses of a gun, are you insane?

And I just wonder how much you know about this, how many defensive uses of guns do you feel there are per year, compared to the 12,000 or so deaths(not counting suicide because, why would I?)? I am not even asking you to go look up the number. You can, I am curious though if you were aware of both numbers when you made the statement about guns.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^truth

Who decides here what does and doesn't warrant its own thread? You and Firefly?

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol this is just insanity though, so why do I get the feeling it will be "bingo'ed" multiple times.

The narrative is "thank god this guy had a gun, things could have been worse". THAT is the narrative.

No, pointing out they can help is *not* in any way justifying negative uses of a gun, are you insane? You are rambling like a crazy person lol. I feel like this opioid analogy will help you understand better than plain logic, so I'll repost it below.

This is like celebrating that opioids made 1 person happy. Sure, those opioids may have made that person happy, but those same opioids have made thousands of other people depressed

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
Who decides here what does and doesn't warrant its own thread? You and Firefly? Proportionality

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
Who decides here what does and doesn't warrant its own thread? You and Firefly?

you're obviously pushing a narrative in the OP. sorry you have such a delicate constitution when the obvious is pointed out. :')

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
I feel like this opioid analogy will help you understand better than plain logic, so I'll repost it below.

This is like celebrating that opioids made 1 person happy. Sure, those opioids may have made that person happy, but those same opioids have made thousands of other people depressed

Lol, you just pick the worst examples, or the wrong person to give them to. The pills can be bad if abused by people who do not need them.

I suffer from chronic pain. I need pain medication. Should I be denied it because some people lack self control? Nope. I know plenty of other people with chronic pain too. No, me and others like me should not be denied medication we need because people abuse the medications.

I ask again: do you know how many defensive usages of guns there are per year? I just gave you the number of non-suicide related deaths via guns, around 10,000-12,000. Note: a defensive usage of a gun does not only include times when a gun was used to kill.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you're obviously pushing a narrative in the OP. sorry you have such a delicate constitution when the obvious is pointed out. :')

So? Who decides what should get posted? People disagree on these things.

Example: you whining my thread about Democrat sexual abuse needed to be moved to the "triggered" thread. Obviously I did not think so.

Robtard
Originally posted by Kurk
What is Robtard's stance on this? Was this criminal a victim? Could he have been rehabilitated?

Let's see, story says: "police told KTVT the knife-wielding intruder made threats against the family, trashed household items and tried running toward a room."

That's where he crossed the line, this wasn't some kid breaking into a house to loot some jewelry and credit cards and then bail out , this guy showed clear aggression; was a threat to people. So imo, shooting his ass was reasonable.

Still, that doesn't dispel Surt's laughably transparent agenda here.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
I also think people need to not only consider themselves, but others. People going "get a bat or machete!"...okay, say that to a 70 yr. old lady who is concerned for her safety. Tell her to get a bat or a machete.

Tell someone with any kind of physical disability "machete time".
Damn that's also a great point.

Or a woman whose not particularly physically imposing. I mean... if we live in a patriarchal rape culture or whatever why should women not have that option of self-defense?

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, you just pick the worst examples, or the wrong person to give them to. The pills can be bad if abused by people who do not need them.

I suffer from chronic pain. I need pain medication. Should I be denied it because some people lack self control? Nope. I know plenty of other people with chronic pain too. No, me and others like me should not be denied medication we need because people abuse the medications.

I ask again: do you know how many defensive usages of guns there are per year? I just gave you the number of non-suicide related deaths via guns, around 10,000-12,000. Note: a defensive usage of a gun does not only include times when a gun was used to kill. This isn't about you and your special situations. You can't justify promoting the use of opioids, when thousands of people a year are dying in a drug epidemic.

If for some reason an opioid pill could help your back pain, that's fine. If you need a small gun for self-defense, that's fine. But there's no reason to celebrate the opioids and the effect they're having on your special situation, because those same pills that are helping you have harmed 10 others.

It's not an argument against having a gun for self-defense, I'm not saying that. It's an argument against the celebration, promotion and romanticization of guns.

There's no need to push this narrative.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
So? Who decides what should get posted? People disagree on these things.

Example: you whining my thread about Democrat sexual abuse needed to be moved to the "triggered" thread. Obviously I did not think so. nobody said or implied that the thread should be closed, so i don't know why your whining on that premise. you established a narrative, it was obvious, and you're just silly and petty to deny it. pretty sure that's what rob, ff, etc are saying as well. no need to pull your worn out victim card once again. :')

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
This isn't about you and your special situations. You can't justify promoting the use of opioids, when thousands of people a year are dying in a drug epidemic.

You speak nonsense. You can ABSOLUTELY justify people who need them using them. I like how you dismiss me and my "special situation" and why? Because people like me are the type who would suffer if you had your way.



Good lord...saying "thank god he had a gun, this could have been worse if he didn't" is not saying all guns are awesome all the time.

Who celebrates opioid use? I'm confused. Let me ask: when I had my most serious surgery(a spinal fusion) I was in so much pain I was in tears. Taking an opioid helped take that away and I remember expressing to my dad how thankful I was to have had them. Is that me "celebrating" opioids?



You made a comment about negative gun use. I ask again: do you know how many times guns are used defensively each year...compared to the number of deaths they cause?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nobody said or implied that the thread should be closed, so i don't know why your whining on that premise. you established a narrative, it was obvious, and you're just silly and petty to deny it. pretty sure that's what rob, ff, etc are saying as well. no need to pull your worn out victim card once again. :')

So WHY is it wrong to say "thank god he had a gun, who knows what would have happened if he didn't?'. And that also was not the narrative you were pushing lol. You were saying this is being used to negate Texas, to suggest home invasions always end in violence, etc.

Yes, thank god he had a gun.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
So WHY is it wrong to say "thank god he had a gun, who knows what would have happened if he didn't?'. And that also was not the narrative you were pushing lol. You were saying this is being used to negate Texas, to suggest home invasions always end in violence, etc.

Yes, thank god he had a gun. How about "thank god he was prepared" instead of "thank god he had a gun"? If your sentiment if genuinely for the safety of the family, you wouldn't need to celebrate people having guns.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
So WHY is it wrong to say "thank god he had a gun, who knows what would have happened if he didn't?'. And that also was not the narrative you were pushing lol. You were saying this is being used to negate Texas, to suggest home invasions always end in violence, etc.

Yes, thank god he had a gun.

it's very childish to post an article, add a blatant narrative in the title and OP, and then go on to whine for 5 pages (so far) that you never established a narrative. grow up and get over it, broski.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's very childish to post an article, add a blatant narrative in the title and OP, and then go on to whine for 5 pages (so far) that you never established a narrative. grow up and get over it, broski.

I said I never established the narrative you were claiming.

Which I didn't. It's very childish to whine over someone saying "thank god he had a gun".

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
How about "thank god he was prepared" instead of "thank god he had a gun"? If your sentiment if genuinely for the safety of the family, you wouldn't need to celebrate people having guns.

Oh bullshit, thank god he had a gun. It doesn't celebrate guns in general. It celebrates the fact he had one and it helped.

It's not wrong to do so, it is insane people like you who think this is somehow justifying using guns to murder people.

And at this point be honest: you know damn well the number of gun deaths per year doesn't come close to the number of defensive uses, don't you? I am 99.9% sure you know this.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.