0
   

A MAN 's HOME IS HIS CASTLE

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 10:32 am
The Gift of Fear is, indeed, nonfiction. It talks about danger and how you should listen to your intuition.

http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 10:36 am
Well, in that, case, i would revise my remark to read: "Scenarios in self-help books are hardly a plausible answer to the questions which the Wabbit and i asked."

If one is enjoined to listen to one's intuition, then my response would be that both my intellect and my gut feeling tell me it is dangerous to keep firearms in the home unless the firearms or the ammunition are locked up--in which case they are not going to be useful in dealing with intruders who surprise the home owner.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 10:54 am
imo soz but it plain and simple :

Quote:
One point from all of that (I can try to find the article back) is that having easy access to guns is dangerous in terms of suicide and murder because of the hot state aspect.


perhaps there are some people that are NEVER in a "hot state" - just haven't met anyone yet .
hbg
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 10:58 am
DrewDad wrote:



Quote:
David, Bad or distorted studies in the past do not make all studies bad or distorted.

We agree on that.
However: IF U LIED TO ME IN THE PAST,
SHUD I EXPECT U TO TELL ME THE TRUTH IN THE FUTURE
??
If so,
will u be kind enuf to explain the reason ?


Quote:
That's the same as the ad hominem argument.

Well prior mulitiple frauds actually DO inform one
as to the character of the person
who offers allegations of truth
in the present.




Quote:

One idiot Republican doesn't make all Republican's idiots.
One bad study does not make all studies wrong.

That is more likely correct as to errors of an accidental nature
( perhaps an undected typographical error )
as distinct from a string of clearly intentional deceptions,
most of whose details are only dim memories,
because of the passage of the years,
but I do not give them credit for truth, knowing the bad character
from whence thay come.

As an example, I remember one of the " studies " qua suicides in the home
being based upon the number of human remains in a morgue
on a given date, when there happened to be a lot of suicides;
I imagine that a lot of them probably used a gun in suicide.

Whether a person chooses to end his own life, is a personal matter.
No one owes a duty to the community to go on living.
The technique of his self removal is no one else 's business,
unless he opts to jump out of a hi window or to drive dangerously etc.




David
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:00 am
to add to what soz said :

Quote:
baltimoresun.com
Shootings highlight questions about kids who kill relatives with little warning
By Ben Nuckols

The Associated Press

8:27 AM EST, February 6, 2008

Authorities offered no further insight into the motive of a teenager accused in the shooting deaths of his father, mother and two brothers, but experts say such crimes are not unprecedented -- and they often come without any obvious warning signs.

Nicholas W. Browning remained jailed without bond after confessing early Sunday that he killed his father, John Browning, his mother, Tamara, and his younger brothers, Gregory, 14, and Benjamin, 11, according to Baltimore County police.

Browning, who turns 16 on Saturday, had no history of violence, mental health problems or drug problems, according to court documents. His father was a highly regarded business attorney, and the family lived in an affluent suburb. Browning played golf and lacrosse, was active in his church and was close to becoming an Eagle Scout.

Those details were not surprising to Paul A. Mones, a defense attorney for children accused of killing their parents, who wrote a book about his work called "When a Child Kills."

"This happens to kids in middle- and upper-middle-class, even upper-class homes," said Mones, who practices in Portland, Ore. "It happens in families that, from the outside, look like normal, typical, great families."

In the United States, about 300 children a year are charged with killing one or both parents, Mones said. Cases where a child kills the entire family, known as "familicide," are less frequent.

Louis B. Schlesinger, a professor of a forensic psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said familicide is more commonly committed by a depressed or jealous father.

Slayings of relatives by teenagers "are usually spontaneous sorts of things," Schlesinger said. "With the brooding, depressive male adult, it's not spontaneous, it's much more thought through, with obsessive rumination prior to it. With a teenager, it's almost always impulsive, spontaneous, and there happens to be a loaded gun around."

Mones said slayings are typically motivated by one of two factors: "extreme family dysfunction in terms of physical and emotional abuse, or severe mental health issues that pervade the family, whether it's the perpetrator or the parents or themselves.

"There are cases where kids just snap out of the blue and go on a rampage, but it's really, really rare."

Bill Toohey, a Baltimore County police spokesman, said Browning told officers where they could find the gun used in the slayings, which he tossed into some bushes near the home. The gun belonged to John Browning and was kept inside the home.

Experts said easy access to guns was a common thread in cases where children kill their parents.

"The biggest risk factor that was not prevented was his access to firearms, and I think that's the biggest tragedy," said Dr. Anandhi Narasimhan, a Los Angeles-based child psychologist.

Narasimhan noted that because mental health records are confidential, it's impossible to know for sure whether Browning was suffering from mental illness or had shown other warning signs, such as bullying at school or cruelty to animals.

Mones hypothesizes that such slayings are more frequent in affluent families because wealth makes abuse easier to conceal.

"If you look at reports of abuse and family problems in upper-middle class families, it's really low, because the walls between the families and the world are very, very high," he said. "In lower-income communities, the police and social service agencies have a major presence, so it's nothing to call 911 when a kid's being mistreated or a neighbor hears screams."






source :
EASY ACCESS DEADLY
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:08 am
DrewDad wrote:
And yes, I can already hear you saying "but I'm not going to commit suicide."

No one owes a duty to make a committment about that.

Everyone has an inalienable right to end his or her life if he chooses to do so,
under such circumstances as are satisfactory to him or her.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:31 am
hamburger wrote:
to add to what soz said :

Quote:
baltimoresun.com
Shootings highlight questions about kids who kill relatives with little warning
By Ben Nuckols

The Associated Press

8:27 AM EST, February 6, 2008

Experts said easy access to guns was a common thread in cases where children kill their parents.

"The biggest risk factor that was not prevented was his access to firearms, and I think that's the biggest tragedy," said Dr. Anandhi Narasimhan, a Los Angeles-based child psychologist.


Experts on WHAT ?
Were these experts perhaps anti-gun fanatics BEFORE
thay expressed their opinions ?
Is that the reason that THEIR opinions
were selected for reference and publication ?

Do counter-experts hold contrary opinions, or is that a unanimous opinion among " experts " ?

It is a fact that many experts, on cross-examination of their testimony
in court are shown to have been in error, been caught in deceptive statements
by adverse counsel, and have found it necessary to admit in front of juries,
but these " experts " were not ( so far as we can see ) subjected to
any form of verification.

Let us ASSUME for the moment that their allegations are accurate:
how many of the killers wud have used other means to accomplish
the same result ? Is it a lot NICER to be killed with a Molotov cocktail ?
or several of them ? or some other explosive device ?

Do Molotov cocktails have to be licensed by the police ?
Must their possession be registered with them ?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:44 am
DrewDad wrote:
And yes, I can already hear you saying "but I'm not going to commit suicide."



Actually no, I wasn't going to say that at all.

I was going to say....they wanted to commit suicide, they did what they set out to do.

I don't see the problem.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:48 am
Setanta wrote:
Well, in that, case, i would revise my remark to read: "Scenarios in self-help books are hardly a plausible answer to the questions which the Wabbit and i asked."

If one is enjoined to listen to one's intuition, then my response would be that both my intellect and my gut feeling tell me it is dangerous to keep firearms in the home unless the firearms or the ammunition are locked up--in which case they are not going to be useful in dealing with intruders who surprise the home owner.



set, did you not read my last post?

you asked for scenerios, I gave you 2 that were not in any book, but from my own life.

If your gut and your intellect tell you what you said above, then that's what you should do in your home.

I mean, your gut is bigger than mine. :wink:
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 11:52 am
Chai wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
And yes, I can already hear you saying "but I'm not going to commit suicide."



Actually no, I wasn't going to say that at all.

I was going to say....they wanted to commit suicide, they did what they set out to do.

I don't see the problem.

So stipulated.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 12:02 pm
Quote:
Homicide and suicide are the second and third leading causes of death among teens ages 15 to 19, after accidental death.1 Firearms were the instrument of death in over 80 percent of teen homicides and about half of teen suicides in 2004.2 While almost one in four youth firearm injuries results in death, nonfirearm injuries result in death in only one out of every 760 cases.3


And...

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/figures/70-Figure-1.gif
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 12:37 pm
Chai wrote:
set, did you not read my last post?

you asked for scenerios, I gave you 2 that were not in any book, but from my own life.

If your gut and your intellect tell you what you said above, then that's what you should do in your home.


I wonder if you read my last post, before the one you've just quoted. You have been changing your story as this goes along. DD had pointed out that it were dangerous to have firearms in a home with children--you have attempted to suggest that it were dangerous not to have firearms in the home because of the threat of intruders (and your changing story about your own experience with intruders is what i was pointing out). You don't convince me, and i don't consider that you have offered a good argument.

In all my life, i have never had an intruder in the home. If i were an owner of a firearm, it would be there every day of my life. If had children in the home, those children would be near a firearm every day.

To quote a police officer who once commented when i was angry at another motorist over an accident: "Sometimes it's just an accident." It's one thing to contemplate in a fender bender--it's a horror to contemplate that "it's just an accident" when a child has killed him- or herself, or someone else.

Intruders in the home are hardly a commonplace--being killed by an intruder is going to be even less common.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 01:31 pm
Chai wrote:
Honestly garg? I have had 2 instances where a person has broken into my residence, when I was there.

In the first instance, actually the intruder was already in my apt, and I came home unexpectedly during the day and caught him there. Without going into a long story, he was there thinking there was a large quantity of drugs there. When I realized what was going on, I ran out. Unfortuanately, we couldn't call the police, or they would have found our medium size quantity of drugs.
I figure someone breaking into your house, posing as a service man, to steal drugs, might very well be dangerous enough to attack me.

The 2nd time, this maintenance man at an apt I lived at started stalking me. I'm not going to devulge any details of that one, suffice it to say I wish I'd had a gun.



Where have I changed my story set?

If I have to spell it out for you, the maintenance man, who was facinated with me, AKA stalking, was the intruder at night, in my apartment, while I was in bed. I did not have a gun, but if I did, there would have been at least 2 times while he was there that I would have been able to get it.

Do you need any more details? I have to be careful, or Bill will be over here trying to comfort me with his little parenthesis.


You are quite fortunate you have never had an intruder in your home.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 01:34 pm
For people who are worried about intruders, a dog makes much more sense than a loose, loaded gun.

Every would be thief who appoaches your house can tell if you have a dog but not if you have a gun. They're going to avoid a house with a barking dog.

Even if they still want to get you your dog has given you ample warning so that you can open the safe and load the gun.

Dogs are 100 times better than guns when it comes to home protection.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 03:11 pm
boomerang wrote:
For people who are worried about intruders,
a dog makes much more sense than a loose, loaded gun.

The idea of having a defensive gun at hand
is to be able to control the situation in an emergency.

Dogs are not reliable.
Like people, thay are thinking beings who
are unpredictable in how thay will act,
with POSSIBLE exceptions of dogs who have been very highly trained,
for a long time, by top-notch experts (e.g., the Army or Marines).




Quote:

Every would be thief who appoaches
your house can tell if you have a dog
but not if you have a gun.
They're going to avoid a house with a barking dog.

Maybe that 's possible, if u r lucky.
Its not reliable.

In the 1980s, I had an investigator who lamented returning home
to find his door broken open, and his ( large ) dog having been shot dead.
He also said something about alarm systems having been disabled.

I have an old large doghouse in my backyard,
for in terrorem purposes, but I have little faith in it.





Quote:

Even if they still want to get you your dog has given you ample warning
so that you can open the safe and load the gun.

I have a gun safe to house my gun collection,
but those guns are not for home defense.
Wud u put a fire extinguisher locked away in your safe ?
Emergencies must be dealt with SWIFTLY, as a matter of life n death.

IMO, if u have a child there,
educate him at the earliest possible age
that u believe he can handle it
to respond to defensive emergencies, if he is willing to accept it.

In my own case, I felt a sense of tranquility
since I armed myself with a .38 at age 8;
never had any trouble.


Quote:

Dogs are 100 times better than guns when it comes to home protection.

That makes no sense; u can 't control the situation that way.

I 've had several large dogs, over the years n decades,
but truth be told, thay were so sweet n affectionate,
that its questionable how valuable thay 'd be for defensive purposes.
I did not have them trained for that.




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 03:23 pm
I think that the essence of the difference of opinion
between the pro-freedom side of the question of self defense
and the suppressionist side, is that the former wish to be able to CONTROL
predatory emergencies, whereas the latter prefer to commit themselves
( and every other potential victim ) to the DISCRETION of future criminal
( or animal ) predators; i.e., thay believe that future victims
shud have confidence in the MERCY of the predators.

The suppressionists also believe
that future victims of violence shud have at least as much faith
in the police as Nicole Brown had while she was on the fone
with 911 and O.J. was knocking down the door.


David
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 03:26 pm
I guess my dogs have always been smarter than your dogs because they have always been reliable and predictable. Reliable and predictable is the very nature of a dog.

I just knew you were going to have a shot dog story. If my dog didn't greet me at the door I wouldn't even go into the house without calling someone to check it out with me.

But then again, my dogs have always been reliable and predictable. I'd know right away something was wrong.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 04:02 pm
david wrote :

Quote:
Dogs are not reliable.
Like people, thay are thinking beings who
are unpredictable in how thay will act ... ...


give "unpredictable" people a gun and ... ...
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 04:33 pm
boomerang wrote:

I guess my dogs have always been smarter than your dogs because they
have always been reliable and predictable.

In DEFENDING U from predatory violence ?? Really ?



Quote:
Reliable and predictable is the very nature of a dog.

Thank u for that information.
What EVIDENCE do u have of dogs defeating intruders ?

Please note that I agree that the probabilities
of burglars being dissuaded by the known presence of a dog
are better than nothing at all ( especially if your neighbors r dogless );
maybe compare it to buying $300 worth
of health insurance indemnity coverage, to cover your bills for surgery:
its better than nothing at all, but I don 't think its enuf.

I am a pro-dog person.
I did not get my dogs to work for me; thay were not employees.
I suppose that keeping a policedog is better than keeping a policebutterfly.







Quote:


I just knew you were going to have a shot dog story.
If my dog didn't greet me at the door I wouldn't even go into the house
without calling someone to check it out with me.

Hopefully someone who was NOT as equally helpless as u r ?

That actually happened to my cousin, Leonard, 50some odd years ago.
We got back to his house in Phoenix and found his front door wide open.



Quote:
But then again, my dogs have always been reliable and predictable.
I'd know right away something was wrong.

Have thay been reliable in defeating BURGLARS ?
How many times did that happen, Boom ?










Off topic:
Your name reminded me
of the best magic trick that I ever saw.
It was in the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas,
in its big amphitheater, about 20 years ago:
a young, beginning magician ( to my shame, I forgot his name )
tall blond guy, had a wooden cane.
He threw it out like a boomerang, in an arc.

It went around the large amphitheater, and after moving
around 20 feet into its journey, it turned into a living white bird,
the size of a large seagull ( maybe he was Jonathan )
who then flew, vocalizing, around the theater.
As he flew to within around 20 feet of the magician, approaching him,
continuing in his arc, he changed back into a wooden cane,
and the magician caught the cane.
That was MAGNIFICENT !




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2008 04:47 pm
hamburger wrote:
david wrote :

Quote:
Dogs are not reliable.
Like people, thay are thinking beings who
are unpredictable in how thay will act ... ...


give "unpredictable" people a gun and ... ...
Rolling Eyes

I don 't believe that ANY person is predictable.
I have never suggested that any person be given* a gun,
regardless of whether is he is predictable.

Let him get his own gun, ( as I have always done ).
I did not advocate government distributing free guns.

I simply wish to point out that the first and highest law of the land
prevents government from having any jurisdiction
to interfere with him after he has possessed himself of defensive guns.



*Altho both my friends Cliff and later, Donald,
won automatic pistols ( Glocks, as I remember ) as door prizes
at gun seminar fund-raising events.

Of the 3 of us, I am the only one of us who did not win a gun;
(altho, I did win a .38 revolver several decades ago, in a poker game,
when I was 8, but that was very long ago-- I shud be due again).




David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 11:57:27