Step 1: Invade home. Step 2: Score family-sized can of whoopass.

And you're a liar. No one here insists on that. We do insist on it being an option we would like to have. An option that shouldn't require the permission of busy-body trouble-making fools like you in order for us to use.

And, for the record, fear has as much to do with employing a firearm instead of... I don't know what garamet is suggesting. Karate, maybe? -- in self defense against a home invasion as it does in reaching for a hammer instead of a marshmallow when you need to drive a nail. It's simply a matter of using the right tool for the job.

Actually having the gun means the householder can take down the intruder without getting close and putting themselves in danger. Or hadn't you thought of that?

I'm almost certain she has, but dismissed it on the basis that she doesn't give a shit about innocent people.

She doesn't care LizK. Spreading the lie that us gun people on Wordforge can only defend ourselves if we have a gun is more important then facts like you posted.

She's a very unethical and immoral person.

Regarding this stance, I refuse to watch STiD on the basis that they use phasers.

That you resort to hysterics in place of discussion? As I say, you already have. You didn't even need to hit the caps lock. What's next in your transformation to Another John Castle? Gonna go with the bold first, or the italics and underline, or all three simultaneously?

And since no one here has said that - except those using it as a straw man...

So did the Taser. Or hadn't you thought of that?

FTFY

Was Volpone Right?

Mom Rams Suspect's Car After Daughter Is Taken

And she didn't even have to shoot him.

Actually, the last time I had to deal with an unwelcome presence in my home, a hammer was quite effective...

Re: Was Volpone Right?

Once again you stupid lying bitch no one here says they can't do something unless they have a gun on them.

No one.

Re: Was Volpone Right?

Well, there's a bit more substance to that than CD's "You're a doody-head!!!" Let's work with it, shall we?

How do you know? Particularly if you carry all the time, and your first thought every time something goes bump in the night is "I'm armed; I can defend myself," how do you know you'd be able to defend yourself if you didn't have a gun on you?

What if there had only been one family member home? There were as many as 4 attackers, according to the article. Would, say, a 17 year old girl have successfully beaten them?

This ONE INCIDENT turned out this way, out of sheer luck that the odds were (apparently) at least even.

So that would be at least one vote for "Must Have Gun to Defend Self."

You have a lot of gall to try to play the victim, you loathsome snake.

You lie to us without shame and try to take the moral high road when someone calls you out on your lie?

You're a disgusting person.

And yet not a single one of you has the self control to STOP FUCKING ENGAGING WITH HER.

Instead you all let her turn EVERY FUCKING thread into a gun thread.

Grow the fuck up, put the dumb bitch on ignore and be done with it. The board will thank you.

I've pointed out that you can't seem to respond to me without flaming. That makes you the victim of your own inability to control your temper. It harms me not at all.

But at least you didn't say "try and." Async will be proud of you, and so am I.

If Edward Bulwer-Lytton were alive today, would he instead have written: "Words onscreen are intimidating to those who cannot think without a gun in their hands"?

Nah, probably not. Doesn't scan nearly as well as the original...

It warms my cold black heart to see how EVERYONE now sees Garamet for what she is.

Some of us saw it before it was fashionable. But I do agree, why even bother attempting to engage her anymore. Just let her do her celverest person in the room act while we all just chuckle behind her back.

Good for you. Because only the thin-skinned mistake a gadfly for a troll.

Now, about the topic...

And you forget that the taser can and has caused death just the same as the gun.

You're telling me in all seriousness that you believe a healthy person (not someone with, for example, an underlying heart condition) is just as likely to die from a Taser shot as from gunshot wound?



Seriously?

"Just the same"? Seriously?

That's why this perp is dead, right?

Then in that case, you guys don't need guns, right?

Ah yes, if someone is able to defend themselves without a gun, everyone should be able to.

And its not like getting zapped with electricity never killed anyone, even if it was from causing them to fall onto something, or off of something onto concrete.

I don't know about you but I have now way of knowing how healthy a person's heart is just by looking at them. I need to see their EKG.
Or have you forgotten all those "healthy" young athletes that died of sudden heart problems on the playing field in recent years??????

Oh, and why do you think they tell you not to zap a person without knowing what the heart rhythm is when you find a person unconscious?
Don't you know you can put a person into a fatal heart rhythm with the taser, even if they had a healthy heart?

So you actually believe that a Taser is just as lethal as a gun? Seriously?

So you actually believe that being shot kills everyone who's shot, the first time, every time? Seriously?

Of course not. Now, if you want to try to prove that Tasers are just as lethal as guns, this is the time. Or just do your usual thing.

So you actually believe one or two cases of people being able to fend off attackers without firearms is an argument against the right to keep and bear arms? Seriously?

Also, you seem to have ignored a rather important point I wasn't the only one to make:

I await your non-response.

Of course not.

I don't disagree with that. What I take issue with is the implication that guns are the only alternative to physically taking an intruder.

Who has implied that, other than you? Guns are the safest alternative available to the homeowner for repelling home invasion.