Who defends themselves with guns?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The original thread was pruned, so I thought I would start another;

NEWBURGH Police say three masked men with handguns entered a home on South Plank Road in the Town of Newburgh Sunday evening, threatened the residents and demanded money, but were ultimately driven away by a shotgun-wielding resident of the home.

At 10 p.m. police were called to 109 South Plank Road to a report of shots being fired. Police were directed to Highland Avenue where residents reported hearing shots and seeing people running to a dark SUV. Residents of 109 South Plank Road told police that the men entered the home. One resident on the second floor grabbed a loaded shotgun and confronted a suspect in the stairway, firing a shot at him.

The resident fired two additional shots as they fled across the backyard toward Highland. It is unclear if any of the suspects were wounded. There was evidence that a window of suspect’s vehicle might have shattered. Witnesses told police the SUV headed east on Highland. None of the home’s residents were injured.

Anyone with information is asked to contact town detectives at 564-1100.

From the reports, it sounds weapon in question was probably a semi-automatic shotgun able to hold multiple rounds. If it had a pistol grip, then many gun control advocates in this forum would want it outlawed. I am sure this guy was glad he had it, since all three assailants were armed. This kind of home invasion also supports the need for higher capacity magazines.

[JohnC1908]

I guess I live a charmed life. Never have I felt the need to have a gun.

[rivergator]

I guess I live a charmed life. Never have I felt the need to have a gun.

me either. but i'm glad that resident had his shotgun when he needed it.

[reformedgator]

I guess I live a charmed life. Never have I felt the need to have a gun.

I'm glad that's the case for you, but all it would take is one serious incident for your whole perspective to change.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I guess I live a charmed life. Never have I felt the need to have a gun.

Me neither, in spite of owning them for many, many years. That said, if you need a gun and don't have one, you may never need one again. They are very much like parachutes in that regard.

[SurfinG8or]

Thats the thing. I hope I never need to pull my pistol, or take out my rifle. But I know that I'd rather have my gun nearby and not need it, than not have a gun at all and need it.

[gator1986]

I'm different then most, I hope someone breaks in one day. I got 5 guns hidden throughout my house that need to be put to use. Wouldn't want to kill, but would definitely shoot a knee out.

[SurfinG8or]

I'm different then most, I hope someone breaks in one day. I got 5 guns hidden throughout my house that need to be put to use. Wouldn't want to kill, but would definitely shoot a knee out.

Then the guy would get a lawyer and come after you for crippling him for the rest of his life. Inside my home, I would shoot to kill if it was serious enough to cause me to pull my gun on someone.

[gatornana]

The original thread was pruned, so I thought I would start another;



From the reports, it sounds weapon in question was probably a semi-automatic shotgun able to hold multiple rounds. If it had a pistol grip, then many gun control advocates in this forum would want it outlawed. I am sure this guy was glad he had it, since all three assailants were armed. This kind of home invasion also supports the need for higher capacity magazines.

Sounds like the wild west.....shooting outside the home a fleeing assailants. What if innocent people were out for a walk or some kids were playing nearby.

Gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean one has good judgement or aim. Higher capacity magazines mean more bullets are flying, more chance to kill an innocent bystander.

[Dreamliner]

Sounds like the wild west.....shooting outside the home a fleeing assailants. What if innocent people were out for a walk or some kids were playing nearby.

Gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean one has good judgement or aim. Higher capacity magazines mean more bullets are flying, more chance to kill an innocent bystander.

Shooting innocent people ? Sounds like the cops. :whoa:

[Dreamliner]

Pop Quiz: Who kills more innocent people ?

(A) private sector

(B) public sector

[JohnC1908]

I'm glad that's the case for you, but all it would take is one serious incident for your whole perspective to change.

You could be right. I don't have kids and I could see how my perspective could change if I did. But I feel I frequent safe areas, I lock the doors at night, and rarely feel I'm in any kind of danger.
If somebody busted my window in the middle of the night (which I find highly improbable) I could hold my own.

[DSRrg]

I'm different then most, I hope someone breaks in one day. I got 5 guns hidden throughout my house that need to be put to use. Wouldn't want to kill, but would definitely shoot a knee out.

If someone breaks into my house that represents a clear and present danger to the life of my wife and my little girl. There would be no calling lawyers.

[gator1986]

Then the guy would get a lawyer and come after you for crippling him for the rest of his life. Inside my home, I would shoot to kill if it was serious enough to cause me to pull my gun on someone.

Yea in Florida we have laws to protect that, plus if you break in and endanger my families well being, killing you would be the easy way out. I would have to make them suffer, two knee caps shot out, and maybe a shoulder and an elbow... We have had 3 break ins here in my hometown over the last year that have had the homeowners pull their guns and shoot ( injure not kill ) and they got away with it, so I will go the same path lol... Man I'm twisted, oh well! You have to protect your own!

[Dreamliner]

You could be right. I don't have kids and I could see how my perspective could change if I did. But I feel I frequent safe areas, I like the doors at night, and I rarely feel like I'm in any kind of danger.
If somebody busted in my window in the middle of the night (which I find highly improbable) I feel I could hold my own.

Funny, I've sold alarm systems, for the better part of a decade, and never once witnessed a front-window break-in, much less a front-window break-in home invasion. They almost always came through the front door, secondarily a slider.

Not that people shouldn't be prudent, but it is amazing, the persistent fear among young mothers of someone smashing a bedroom window to snatch the baby out of its crib.

[SurfinG8or]

Yea in Florida we have laws to protect that, plus if you break in and endanger my families well being, killing you would be the easy way out. I would have to make them suffer, two knee caps shot out, and maybe a shoulder and an elbow... We have had 3 break ins here in my hometown over the last year that have had the homeowners pull their guns and shoot ( injure not kill ) and they got away with it, so I will go the same path lol... Man I'm twisted, oh well! You have to protect your own!

Well hopefully I never have to worry about this.

[RealGatorFan]

No one is immune to breakins these days. The laws favor the criminal so the best defense is a good offense. If an intruder enters my home he gets one chance to leave before I unload and I don't miss. Usually the sound of pumping a shotgun is enough but criminals are a bit more crazy these days.

[Tasselhoff]

Sorry but if you break into my house in the middle of the night....your one chance to leave is terminated. And I am no where good enough a shot to aim to wound. I aim for center mass, pull the trigger and keep pulling until you stop moving. I grew up in a not so nice area.....This was what everyone believed in...even the cops.

[TnCamoGator]

I have 2 pistols in my night stand next to my bed, i have 2 rifles in my closet, my wife has 2 rifles in her closet, and I have 6 others in another room. There's a long hallway between my wife and I's room with our daughters room behind us. And I'll say this, if an intruder steps in they'll be leaving in a body bag

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Sounds like the wild west.....shooting outside the home a fleeing assailants. What if innocent people were out for a walk or some kids were playing nearby.

My goodness woman. Get back with us the next time you and your husband have three armed assailants attacking you in your home.


Gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean one has good judgement or aim. Higher capacity magazines mean more bullets are flying, more chance to kill an innocent bystander.

Yea, so let us know how often all that happens. Use, you know, facts and sh&t to tell us how often innocents are killed when a gun is used in home self defense.

[peytiepie]

Sorry but if you break into my house in the middle of the night....your one chance to leave is terminated. And I am no where good enough a shot to aim to wound. I aim for center mass, pull the trigger and keep pulling until you stop moving. I grew up in a not so nice area.....This was what everyone believed in...even the cops.

This!!! Amen and amen!!!

[gator1986]

Sorry but if you break into my house in the middle of the night....your one chance to leave is terminated. And I am no where good enough a shot to aim to wound. I aim for center mass, pull the trigger and keep pulling until you stop moving. I grew up in a not so nice area.....This was what everyone believed in...even the cops.

I just would like to make them suffer.....

[gatorbronco]

Last week, PBS (yes PBS) aired a segment in which callers told their stories of using a firearm to defend themselves and their family. One guy had actually used his assualt rifle four different time to defend himself, killing an individual one of those times. When asked if maybe he should consider moving he said he finally did, but that he was a teacher in a bad section of town and he thought he should be close to his students. There was another situation where a woman was alone with her baby and someone was trying to break in the front door. She shouted to the intruder she had a shotgun and would use it. He broke in anyway and she killed him as he broke through the door.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Illinois’ self-defense law allows a homeowner to use deadly force if an intruder breaks in violently, or if the homeowner believes deadly force is the only way to prevent the intruder from committing a felony. Keeney says she was attacked after stepping outside her apartment to smoke a cigarette.

“As I was closing the door behind me, this really big man pushed his way through the door,” she recalled. “I started pushing back. ... He put one arm behind my arm and picked me up and threw me over my couch.”

The man then went behind a recliner, where her sister was sitting, and put Carlyle in a choke hold.

“He had her trapped like a rat,” Keeney said.

Carlyle said she was trying to dial 911 with a cellphone in her left hand while fighting for air with her right hand.

“When he was yanking me up, my feet were in the air,” Carlyle said. “It hurt so bad. I couldn’t lean forward. I could feel the air closing off. I couldn’t breathe at all.”

Keeney said she grabbed the gun — the side table is near the apartment door — and warned the man to let her sister go. He was demanding money, but Keeney said she and her sister both have multiple health problems and support themselves with disability benefits.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/highland-woman-says-she-had-no-choice-but-to-shoot/article_d66ba8f6-17ee-5e8a-8b30-b2776d38a529.html

[Dreamliner]

Whenever any of you despair the US is becoming Europe, take a deep, cleansing breath and concentrate on two items:

(1) On the eve of the Iraq War, then UK Lord High Chancellor, Jack Straw, intoned, "Our thoughts are with you." Meanwhile, in wacky California, Barbara Boxer said, "Our prayers are with you."

(2) In the UK, you cannot defend yourself, with deadly force, in your own home. In wacky California, you can.

[The_Graygator]

The original thread was pruned, so I thought I would start another;



From the reports, it sounds weapon in question was probably a semi-automatic shotgun able to hold multiple rounds. If it had a pistol grip, then many gun control advocates in this forum would want it outlawed. I am sure this guy was glad he had it, since all three assailants were armed. This kind of home invasion also supports the need for higher capacity magazines.


I have a pistol grip 20 ga. riot shotgun, and any "anti-gunners" are more than welcome to try to take it away from me. lol

It's BYOB btw. (Bring your own bodybag). :wink:

That said, the entire discussion about guns is that the progressives and socialists currently infesting our WH and congress will never stop at SA rifles. That kook Diane Feinstein has already proven this. Obama himself once said "I'm not going to take away your shotguns or your rifles". But what is he trying to do now? Stop us from being to buy anymore of them and limit our ability to provide ammo for them. Of course, when Obama lies, libs just look the other way and bring up Bush in some negative manner to rationalize Obama's lies.

Who cares about these idiots like the guy up in NY who was saying "you don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer" when you are only allowed a 5 round clip for hunting game animals like deer? :roll:

Common sense and being informed about what you're against doesn't matter to liberals, it's the temptation of being able to control someone that appeals to them, so, systematically take away the population's ability to forcefully resist and your control increases. This will never end with SA's. It will expand to include more weapons and more ammo, and eventually, one day if this insanity continues, it will end up being a govt. decree for everyone to turn in their guns. You cannot give socialists/progressives an inch, or they will take a light year.

These liberals today think that obeying King Obama's decrees without question is the way to make this country "equal" and "fair" for everyone. They don't care they're handing over their Constitutional rights, they just want govt. to run their lives for them, control them, and in that same sense, control everyone else like they themselves want to be controlled.

As this controversy continues, Obama will use his SOTU address tonight to fuel this issue even more, while we have yet another unstable murdering maniac in Chris Dorner out in California gunning for cops, a guy I personally believe that Obama's divisive racial and class warfare rhetoric helped push over the edge. :yes:

Of course, of all Californians would just disarm and turn in all their weapons en masse', they would have nothing to fear from Dorner according to liberal logic, because all of the criminals would, of course, turn in their weapons too. :nervous smile:

[The_Graygator]

Sounds like the wild west.....shooting outside the home a fleeing assailants. What if innocent people were out for a walk or some kids were playing nearby.

Gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean one has good judgement or aim. Higher capacity magazines mean more bullets are flying, more chance to kill an innocent bystander.

If they're in my home, they leaving in a body bag.

If they've run outside the home, I'm not going to chase them outside and still shoot at them. It's a ridiculous and dangerous thing to do because you could shoot into a neighbor's home or harm and innocent bystander.

Common sense people.

[wargunfan]

Unarmed and armed victims; the difference between the UK and the US. One of the victims is in South Africa where citizens are currently fighting to keep their very limited rights of gun ownership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JSXKKUYLJg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_South_Africa

[Gatorstooth]

It might be a good idea for gun owners to investigate this a little further because on the surface that law for deadly force looks pretty straight forward, but underneath the law gets a little flaky. Florida law states that a person may use deadly force if someone is violently trying to enter your home or vehicle, however you can't shoot a cop trying to do it even if you don't know it's a cop. Someone pounding on your front door ordering you to open it is different than kicking your door in. Under any circumstance, the use of force must be reasonable, and the degree of force used should not be excessive. Using excessive force can be a crime, and even a felony. So the person may very well leave in a body bag, but you could also very well leave in hand cuffs. Who knows?

[SurfinG8or]

It might be a good idea for gun owners to investigate this a little further because on the surface that law for deadly force looks pretty straight forward, but underneath the law gets a little flaky. Florida law states that a person may use deadly force if someone is violently trying to enter your home or vehicle, however you can't shoot a cop trying to do it even if you don't know it's a cop. Someone pounding on your front door ordering you to open it is different than kicking your door in. Under any circumstance, the use of force must be reasonable, and the degree of force used should not be excessive. Using excessive force can be a crime, and even a felony. So the person may very well leave in a body bag, but you could also very well leave in hand cuffs. Who knows?

If someone is in my house especially in the middle of the night I'm unloading on them. I'm assuming they are going to kill me or my family. They would have no business being there and it would be a very scary situation. I'm not taking the chance.

[gatordee]

Breaking windows is old school. Now they just kick in the door and try to get the drop on you. Holding your own is one thing but NO ONE is invincible. Me personally, could not live with myself if someone close to me was injured seriously or even killed because I was not prepared. Right now I am watching tv live where guy is barricaded in a house after killing two people earlier today and injuring 2 cops. I believe it was a gentleman and his daughter. Was he prepared? The chances are very slim that I will ever be put in a situation like this BUT.... My ex sister in law was murdered in downtown Orlando after being raped so it can happen.

[Tasselhoff]

I will say this. After spending time with some swat guys...good friends.... they all say that when they go in to a hostiles home in the middle of the night they are more concerned with big dogs than guns. Reason being a big dog isnt frightened by their shouts the show of arms or numbers. Most people are droggy hestitant ans at least startled when the swat team invades. My wife and I now have a lovely new member to our family. A big loud and lovable ...to us.....dog. as well as guns.

[SurfinG8or]

I will say this. After spending time with some swat guys...good friends.... they all say that when they go in to a hostiles home in the middle of the night they are more concerned with big dogs than guns. Reason being a big dog isnt frightened by their shouts the show of arms or numbers. Most people are droggy hestitant ans at least startled when the swat team invades. My wife and I now have a lovely new member to our family. A big loud and lovable ...to us.....dog. as well as guns.

A dog is the best alarm system for sure. Even if it's a small dog.

[Dreamliner]

I can think of one good reason to have dogs AND an alarm system. My wife and I had monitored smoke detectors installed ... ostensibly for the dogs.

[The_Graygator]

Crazy story...


Got home tonight just around midnight from Tally after watching the UF - UK ballgame and hanging with some friends, and when I parked my car in my own driveway and got out, there was a black guy dressed head to toe in all black clothes and his face hidden by a hoodie standing about 10 feet behind my car.

Scared the total crap out of me.

He actually asked me for money, but in my left hand along with my CD case was my holstered 9mm pistol. I reached over, popped the snap on the holster and placed my hand on the grip of the weapon and warned this idiot I was armed and to get the hell off my property, and he took off jogging down my driveway and then took off at a full run once he hit the street.

Called the cops once I got inside but my home town police are a bunch of clowns that couldn't find their own asses with an ass detector. No call back that they found the guy either.

[SurfinG8or]

Crazy story...


Got home tonight just around midnight from Tally after watching the UF - UK ballgame and hanging with some friends, and when I parked my car in my own driveway and got out, there was a black guy dressed head to toe in all black clothes and his face hidden by a hoodie standing about 10 feet behind my car.

Scared the total crap out of me.

He actually asked me for money, but in my left hand along with my CD case was my holstered 9mm pistol. I reached over, popped the snap on the holster and placed my hand on the grip of the weapon and warned this idiot I was armed and to get the hell off my property, and he took off jogging down my driveway and then took off at a full run once he hit the street.

Called the cops once I got inside but my home town police are a bunch of clowns that couldn't find their own asses with an ass detector. No call back that they found the guy either.

Thats crazy and a perfect example of the stuff nobody ever hears about. If someone has never been in a situation where there is a real possibility of serious harm it's hard for them to understand. Glad you didn't have to shoot him. And I would bet he never shows up in your driveway again.

[G8trGr8t]

I have 2 pistols in my night stand next to my bed, i have 2 rifles in my closet, my wife has 2 rifles in her closet, and I have 6 others in another room. There's a long hallway between my wife and I's room with our daughters room behind us. And I'll say this, if an intruder steps in they'll be leaving in a body bag

All those unsecured guns are one burglary away from being in the hands of the bad guys. Buy a safe..keep one gun in a well concealed but accesable location

[rivergator]

Crazy story...


Got home tonight just around midnight from Tally after watching the UF - UK ballgame and hanging with some friends, and when I parked my car in my own driveway and got out, there was a black guy dressed head to toe in all black clothes and his face hidden by a hoodie standing about 10 feet behind my car.

Scared the total crap out of me.

He actually asked me for money, but in my left hand along with my CD case was my holstered 9mm pistol. I reached over, popped the snap on the holster and placed my hand on the grip of the weapon and warned this idiot I was armed and to get the hell off my property, and he took off jogging down my driveway and then took off at a full run once he hit the street.

Called the cops once I got inside but my home town police are a bunch of clowns that couldn't find their own asses with an ass detector. No call back that they found the guy either.

what a crazy coincidence. just remarkable.

[Lawdog88]

what a crazy coincidence. just remarkable.


You're not saying it didn't happen, right ?

To me, it is not a coincidence that miscreants are out roaming the streets late into the night, looking for opportunities.

Sounds just like what happened here.

[wgbgator]

A CD case? Is that story from 1997? ;)

[squigator]

I guess I live a charmed life. Never have I felt the need to have a gun.

There must be too many white republicans living in your neighborhood. You should move to a neighborhood dominated by Obama supporters before you make the decision to give up your 2A rights.

[rivergator]

You're not saying it didn't happen, right ?

To me, it is not a coincidence that miscreants are out roaming the streets late into the night, looking for opportunities.

Sounds just like what happened here.

I obviously don't know. Let's just say that some posters are remarkable at coming up with "just yesterday, this happened to me ...." anecdotes that happen to fit current threads to a T.
And, if you remember the thread Gray started about the Trayvon Martin protest in Quincy and the news story that I posted about it, you'd realize there are reasons to question ...

[The_Graygator]

Thats crazy and a perfect example of the stuff nobody ever hears about. If someone has never been in a situation where there is a real possibility of serious harm it's hard for them to understand. Glad you didn't have to shoot him. And I would bet he never shows up in your driveway again.

I found out this morning that I had stuff missing off my front porch, so that means this guy came back after everything settled down and stole the stuff off my porch. Most likely for drugs.

I honestly didn't feel too threatened by this guy and that's why I warned him, and seriously, I was glad I didn't have to actually pull out or aim and especially fire a weapon at someone else.

I called the police this morning when I discovered my stuff missing and they came by and we talked about it and gave them a description of the guy and they said it sounds like someone they know who lives in the adjacent neighborhood and is a crack addict who does stuff similar to this.

I believe it's the same fellow who came up behind me back last November when I was mulching leaves in my front yard and tapped me on the shoulder asking for money. Believe it or not, he had a brand new 2012 "Forward" Obama - Biden t-shirt on that day.

The cops actually told me I handled the situation properly but then told me "when that happens, sometimes you do what you gotta do". :yes:

[The_Graygator]

You're not saying it didn't happen, right ?

To me, it is not a coincidence that miscreants are out roaming the streets late into the night, looking for opportunities.

Sounds just like what happened here.


Whenever River wants to call me a liar to my face, I'm not a hard person to find. :yes::laugh:

[rivergator]

Whenever River wants to call me a liar to my face, I'm not a hard person to find. :yes::laugh:


is this going to be one of the stories where you forget to point out the scary black guy (wearing a HOOD!!!) was seven years old?

[DSRrg]

A dog is the best alarm system for sure. Even if it's a small dog.

That's why you use suppressors. Haha

[DSRrg]

what a crazy coincidence. just remarkable.

Wow, you calling him a liar?

[The_Graygator]

River loves to play the liberal moral high road card and look down his nose at others and then attack them unprovokedly to make himself feel more in control. Not much of a man IMO. A coward who hides behind the internet who is only courageous behind the security of a keyboard.

Nothing new here, but the last person who called me a liar to my face when he was only doing it because he couldn't win an argument ended up picking himself up off the floor.

[rivergator]

Wow, you calling him a liar?

No, I'm just saying it's a remarkable and amazing coincidence. Unless, of course, you remember Gray's thread about that Trayvon march. Then you might have some doubts. Not me, though. I'm sure it happened. A remarkable and amazing coincidence.

[Gatorstooth]

No, I'm just saying it's a remarkable and amazing coincidence. Unless, of course, you remember Gray's thread about that Trayvon march. Then you might have some doubts. Not me, though. I'm sure it happened. A remarkable and amazing coincidence.

I think it could have happened, but as he described it, unlatching the holster and grasping the grip, he was in violation of section 790.053 of the Florida Statutes.

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-537; s. 173, ch. 91-224; s. 3, ch. 97-72; s. 1205, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2006-298; s. 1, ch. 2011-145.

[hbgator]

My guns are lock & loaded 24/7 at my house.

It's been that way for the last 42 years.

My wife is also ready 24/7 to use hers too.

[fairfaxgator]

I shot a rabbit in my back yard...he was Fing with my pit bull...damn rabbit!

[gator1986]

I shot a rabbit in my back yard...he was Fing with my pit bull...damn rabbit!

I shot squirrels, rabbits, and birds... They eat all my plants! Also people are either going to think A. He's crazy or B. I'm lying, but I like to get drunk and party then come home and shoot my shotgun off in the middle of my yard up into the air...

[helix139]

I think it could have happened, but as he described it, unlatching the holster and grasping the grip, he was in violation of section 790.053 of the Florida Statutes.

Doesn't apply on his own property, and it was in necessary self defense anyways

[g8orbill]

I have 4 guns and I do keep my Glock loaded and would use it on an intruder if need be

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I think it could have happened, but as he described it, unlatching the holster and grasping the grip, he was in violation of section 790.053 of the Florida Statutes.

I think a reasonable interpretation of what Grey did was perfectly legal.

1.) One could argue showing it was for self defense.
2.) He was on his own property.

[Gator_Tom66]

River loves to play the liberal moral high road card and look down his nose at others and then attack them unprovokedly to make himself feel more in control. Not much of a man IMO. A coward who hides behind the internet who is only courageous behind the security of a keyboard.

Nothing new here, but the last person who called me a liar to my face when he was only doing it because he couldn't win an argument ended up picking himself up off the floor.

Spot on. I see not much has changed here.

[Gator_Tom66]

My goodness woman. Get back with us the next time you and your husband have three armed assailants attacking you in your home.




Yea, so let us know how often all that happens. Use, you know, facts and sh&t to tell us how often innocents are killed when a gun is used in home self defense.

Good luck with that.

[GolphinGator]

I live in a farm community and no where close to a police or fire station. Most times fast response from either would be 15 minutes. No way would I live there without guns and the knowledge of how to use them. Any guns that are not with me are locked up in a safe when I am not home. And yes if a car or truck pulled up with several people or more I might need more than a 10 round magazine. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. I hope I never have to shoot someone. I would much rather shoot at targets.

[tec68]

Ive got a pump action shotgun by my bed. Someone tries to break in, i pump a round in.

That sound will scare the sh*t outta you.

Had to pump it once, they ran so I never had to use it. Perfect solution.

[CalSFGator]

I'm different then most, I hope someone breaks in one day. I got 5 guns hidden throughout my house that need to be put to use. Wouldn't want to kill, but would definitely shoot a knee out.

And this is the part of gun ownership that gun advocates don't like to talk much about. A lot of people want to shoot other people, and are just waiting for the legal cause.

[g8orbill]

just liberals cally

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

And this is the part of gun ownership that gun advocates don't like to talk much about. A lot of people want to shoot other people, and are just waiting for the legal cause.

You are showing your bias.

[Dreamliner]

And this is the part of gun ownership that gun advocates don't like to talk much about. A lot of people want to shoot other people, and are just waiting for the legal cause.

Well, at least they're waiting for a legal pretense to shoot someone. That right there differentiates them from the government that wants to round up the guns.

[GolphinGator]

And this is the part of gun ownership that gun advocates don't like to talk much about. A lot of people want to shoot other people, and are just waiting for the legal cause.

I really don't think a "lot" of people want to shoot other people, and are just waiting for the legal cause. I will go so far to say that of even the ones that would say that are full of BS. Saying that on a computer in a forum like this would not be the smart thing to do if you ever found yourself defending yourself for shooting someone.

That said, I would never feel sorry for anyone who got shot after breaking into someones home.

[CalSFGator]

You are showing your bias.

how is that? If you consider this board a reasonable sample size for the U.S., the number of people that just want to shoot another human being is staggering. I am thankful that this board weighs heavily towards the angry, dyspeptic old white rightwinger meme, so it doesn't really reflect reality - but it still is "a lot" of people out there by my definition. I will take a wild stab and say a couple million gun owners in the U.S. are slightly hoping for a robber to come bumbling into their house so they can finally shoot those guns they spend every weekend polishing in circles with six other dudes just like them.

[Gatorstooth]

I think a reasonable interpretation of what Grey did was perfectly legal.

1.) One could argue showing it was for self defense.
2.) He was on his own property.

I considered that but I'm not a lawyer and couldn't find if it mattered if it occurred on the persons property or not in statute, so that's the reason I would be careful until I know for certain.

[fairfaxgator]

I shot squirrels, rabbits, and birds... They eat all my plants! Also people are either going to think A. He's crazy or B. I'm lying, but I like to get drunk and party then come home and shoot my shotgun off in the middle of my yard up into the air...

I like to shoot worms as they come out of the ground after a heavy rainfall...

My kids are only standing about 3-4 feet away...it is awesome! And I'm drunk too...hilarious!

Damn worms!

[helix139]

Only tangentially related but a rather funny story: I just got back from buying some ammo at Walmart. The cashier back in sporting goods asks to see my ID for the .357 sig target rounds I am buying and so I pull out my concealed permit (which is state issued, has my picture, and shows my birthdate) because it is easier to get out of my wallet than my driver's license. I am then told by the cashier that this is not sufficient ID to buy ammo and that she has to see my driver's license. I ask her if she is joking and she goes into some nonsense about how even if you have a concealed they have to run a background check when you buy a gun. I guess expecting any sort of rational logic out of a Walmart employee was too much to ask. LOL

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

A CD case? Is that story from 1997? ;)

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That was the key take-away for me, too. You know, you can lighten your CD load and carry more guns now. We have the technology.

[DSRrg]

Only tangentially related but a rather funny story: I just got back from buying some ammo at Walmart. The cashier back in sporting goods asks to see my ID for the .357 sig target rounds I am buying and so I pull out my concealed permit (which is state issued, has my picture, and shows my birthdate) because it is easier to get out of my wallet than my driver's license. I am then told by the cashier that this is not sufficient ID to buy ammo and that she has to see my driver's license. I ask her if she is joking and she goes into some nonsense about how even if you have a concealed they have to run a background check when you buy a gun. I guess expecting any sort of rational logic out of a Walmart employee was too much to ask. LOL

At least she spoke English. Imperial Beach, CA there is a Walmart and I kid you not, some of the workers there speak ZERO English. A little off topic but I've been there and went up to buy something and the person at the check out line could not understand a word I was saying.

Ok....back to guns......

[tegator80]

Be safe out there. Things are going to get worse. But practice is the key to self defense.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/21229974/search-continues-for-third-suspect-in-deadly-prince-edward-co-home-invasion?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8418646

[The_Graygator]

Practice, and common sense.

Anyone who honestly believe that people who own guns are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone is a clueless idiot for the most part. I mean, at least show a little bit of reasonable control over your own thought processes instead of just repeating everything the government and mainstream media tells them to believe. :roll: Be a people, not a sheeple.

The guy who chased the criminals out of his house shooting a gun at them as they drove off? he ought to have been arrested and fined. He could have hurt an innocent bystander. If they are actively disengaging from a confrontation and retreating, whether they stole form you or not, IMO, as long as they did not actually injure a member of your family, you have no right do what he did.

If they had come in his home and murdered someone in his family, I'd probably be a lot more sympathetic to him trying to shoot them as they fled. But just thieves he thwarted? No, he should have used much better judgement.

Practice, be prepared, know what you can and can't do. Think about various situations you could face and how you would react to them.

[lacuna]

Crazy story...


Got home tonight just around midnight from Tally after watching the UF - UK ballgame and hanging with some friends, and when I parked my car in my own driveway and got out, there was a black guy dressed head to toe in all black clothes and his face hidden by a hoodie standing about 10 feet behind my car.

Scared the total crap out of me.

He actually asked me for money, but in my left hand along with my CD case was my holstered 9mm pistol. I reached over, popped the snap on the holster and placed my hand on the grip of the weapon and warned this idiot I was armed and to get the hell off my property, and he took off jogging down my driveway and then took off at a full run once he hit the street.

Called the cops once I got inside but my home town police are a bunch of clowns that couldn't find their own asses with an ass detector. No call back that they found the guy either.

Why did you think it was necessary to be so racially specific when posting your experience on the thread? It is highly unlikely anyone reading of the incident you related is a law enforcement officer charged with apprehending the individual who trespassed on your property, asked for money, then later possibly stole articles from your porch. None of us needed to know he was "a black guy." So why make a point of it?

[tegator80]

Practice, and common sense.

Anyone who honestly believe that people who own guns are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone is a clueless idiot for the most part. I mean, at least show a little bit of reasonable control over your own thought processes instead of just repeating everything the government and mainstream media tells them to believe. :roll: Be a people, not a sheeple.

The guy who chased the criminals out of his house shooting a gun at them as they drove off? he ought to have been arrested and fined. He could have hurt an innocent bystander. If they are actively disengaging from a confrontation and retreating, whether they stole form you or not, IMO, as long as they did not actually injure a member of your family, you have no right do what he did.

If they had come in his home and murdered someone in his family, I'd probably be a lot more sympathetic to him trying to shoot them as they fled. But just thieves he thwarted? No, he should have used much better judgement.

Practice, be prepared, know what you can and can't do. Think about various situations you could face and how you would react to them.

Not going to argue with you, only that I don't believe that common sense is an acquired skill. There may be people who are prone to be reactionary and have that trait if they were to just slow down a little but I am afraid that trying to get common sense for many of our population is a futile exercise.

I did see where one of the guys was outside. I can only hope that he was shot inside and staggered out when he died. Otherwise, remember to drag them inside before you call the police. And fluff up the snow to hide the evidence.:yes:

That station is the best run one in Central VA but they are pretty liberal. My guess is that they wanted the big news story but didn't want to say too much that it was a fortunate thing to defend himself and his son.

Two other articles on the situation from the newspaper, which is balanced but is considered pretty conservative by the academia around here:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/crime/two-dead-after-prince-edward-home-invasion/article_319163a1-866e-5762-8567-bd890a38cb12.html

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-homicides-and-injuries-down-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_f573c648-2e22-5534-a2a8-56fa0fef0fdb.html

[Tasselhoff]

Why did you think it was necessary to be so racially specific when posting your experience on the thread? It is highly unlikely anyone reading of the incident you related is a law enforcement officer charged with apprehending the individual who trespassed on your property, asked for money, then later possibly stole articles from your porch. None of us needed to know he was "a black guy." So why make a point of it?


I honestly did not read it that way. It would have been the same as if he had said teenager or homeless man or skin head. It was just a description, and not a radically specific one at that. I do not think there was a racial motivation behind describing the guy that way.

[GolphinGator]

http://http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/21202112/wild-shootout-at-inkster-tax-business-caught-on-camera

Do they have armed guards where you have your taxes done?

[The_Graygator]

Why did you think it was necessary to be so racially specific when posting your experience on the thread? It is highly unlikely anyone reading of the incident you related is a law enforcement officer charged with apprehending the individual who trespassed on your property, asked for money, then later possibly stole articles from your porch. None of us needed to know he was "a black guy." So why make a point of it?


Ah, I see, the "race" card now. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I used that a lot when I was a lib too. :roll:

You know, the only real racists are the ones who try to make a racial issue out of something. Here's your medal... be proud. :yes:

[Dreamliner]

Waffle House, at Underground Atlanta, is now tacking on a 20% 'security charge.' This per Yahoo News.

[HudsonGator]

I own a couple of shotguns (used to be duck hunter) and a couple of pistols (given to me by my father), but I will tell you, I spent time in London, and there is something nice about a society that isn't armed. While there is always going to be some crime in a major city like London, it is nice to know no matter what neighborhood you are in, there is almost no possibility that you are going to get shot.

I would give up my guns tomorrow if we could have a society like that here.

[gator996]

Ah, I see, the "race" card now. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I used that a lot when I was a lib too. :roll:

You know, the only real racists are the ones who try to make a racial issue out of something. Here's your medal... be proud. :yes:



Just wondering after reading your posts on this thread....


How many people have you actually shot in your life?

How many needed bodybags after running into you?

[Dreamliner]

I own a couple of shotguns (used to be duck hunter) and a couple of pistols (given to me by my father), but I will tell you, I spent time in London, and there is something nice about a society that isn't armed. While there is always going to be some crime in a major city like London, it is nice to know no matter what neighborhood you are in, there is almost no possibility that you are going to get shot.

I would give up my guns tomorrow if we could have a society like that here.

To read the British newspapers, London is a violent place. And just saw a video of a jewelry store robbery in central London. It must have been terrifying for the shopkeepers.

Not being allowed to have guns, somehow, with the aid of a steel bar, the (Pakastani ?) family was able to drive the intruder into a man-trap.

Though in the central city area festooned with surveillance cameras, it took police over twenty minutes to arrive.

[HudsonGator]

As I said, there is still crime in London, but people aren't getting shot in London on a daily basis like they are in every major US city.

[Dreamliner]

As I said, there is still crime in London, but people aren't getting shot in London on a daily basis like they are in every major US city.

A law-abiding citizen in London is probably more likely to be violently accosted, in London, than is a law-abiding citizen in NYC.

[HudsonGator]

A law-abiding citizen in London is probably more likely to be violently accosted, in London, than is a law-abiding citizen in NYC.

And you base that statement upon what?

I have spent time in both cities, I would take London over NYC every time when it comes to safety.

[Dreamliner]

And you base that statement upon what?

I have spent time in both cities, I would take London over NYC every time when it comes to safety.

And you base that on what ?

[wygator]

I'm different then most, I hope someone breaks in one day. I got 5 guns hidden throughout my house that need to be put to use. Wouldn't want to kill, but would definitely shoot a knee out.

Wrong.

None of us want to kill, but if you are using a gun on someone, it is because you feel threatened with deadly force.

If you must make the decision to shoot someone, you must shoot to kill. Once you start shooting at someone, you can bet they are going to attempt to kill you. Shooting a knee out won't stop them from trying to shoot you.

Attempting to wing someone in the heat of battle, possibly in the dark, puts you and your family at more risk.

[Dreamliner]

UK violent crime rate higher than US:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk-has-worst-violent-crime-rate-in-europe-6746864.html

[HudsonGator]

And you base that on what ?


Admittedly it is anecdotal evidence based upon my own experience, but what is not in dispute is the fact that there are thousands of killings in America every year from guns, at the same time gun violence is almost nonexistent in the UK. That is not subjective belief, that is simple math.

We can argue about which is the better society, but about this there be no argument, our society is exponentially more violent than that found in the UK.

I would really like to know upon what do you base your statement that "[a] law-abiding citizen in London is probably more likely to be violently accosted, in London, than is a law-abiding citizen in NYC."

[wygator]

Why guess? Statistics are available. From a 2009 story:

American and British criminologists have long been puzzled and angered by the fact that Britain seems to have learnt nothing from the experience of New York in successfully reducing crime.

The big drop in virtually all types of crime in New York has generally been attributed to the zero-tolerance policy associated with Mayor Guiliani. Now Britain, far from adopting zero-tolerance, looks like it's adopting a policy of not prosecuting many serious crimes at all. This is the subject of an official Home Office directive to all British police forces. British police have now been told that instead of arresting a range of serious criminals, they can be let off with a caution. The Home Office says offenses that may now be dealt with by a caution include burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine if police decide a caution would be the best approach. Other crimes including common assault, threatening behavior, sex with an underage girl or boy, and car theft should normally be dealt with by a caution, if the offenders admit their guilt but have no criminal record.

London and British crime rates have been increasing for years. Recently total crime rates for London have been estimated at about seven times those of New York for a slightly smaller population and some authorities suggest these figures have been minimized. England and Wales are now accounted by some estimates as the most dangerous places for crime in the developed world.

Even the right to self defense in England has been questioned:

There have been doubts expressed that a right to self-defense still exists in British law. Following one homicidal home burglary Dr. Ian Stephen, an Honorary Lecturer (Forensic Psychology) at Glasgow Caledonian University, told householders:

"If you attack the burglar, or react in an 'over-the-top' manner... you will inevitably end up on the receiving end of a prison sentence that will far outstrip that imposed on the intruder in your own home.... [W]hen individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity..."

There are also harrowing quotes from Andrew Lloyd Weber and Joan Collins in the full article.

linky (http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik/print)

[HudsonGator]

UK violent crime rate higher than US:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk-has-worst-violent-crime-rate-in-europe-6746864.html



Nice try, but there is nothing in that article that even remotely supports your argument aside from political rhetoric coming from a member of the conservative party prior to the last parliamentary election. I see no statistics in that article comparing violent crime in the UK to the US. Here’s the entire article you linked in case you would like to read it again.




UK 'has worst violent crime rate in Europe'

02 July 2009

Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the US and any country in Europe, according to the Conservative Party.

Analysis carried out by the Tories on crime figures released by the European Commission also revealed that Britain has the second overall crime rate after Sweden.

The country's murder rate of 1.49 for every 100,000 people ranks it in 13th place, higher than France, Spain and Italy.

Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia have the highest homicide rates in the European Union.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "This is a real damning indictment of this Government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep-rooted social problems in our society, and the knock-on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour."

All rankings were based on the number of crimes committed per 100,000 people, calculated on a three-year average from 2005 to 2007.

Britain had the fifth highest robbery rate in the European Union after Belgium, Spain, France and Portugal, with 164 robberies committed per 100,000 people.

Figures on burglary place the country in fourth, behind Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, but with 304,881 burglaries committed overall, Britain recorded by far the highest number in 2007.

Mr Grayling said: "We're now on our fourth home secretary in this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever, Britain needs a change of direction."


Let's look at real data, shall we?

The UK has 1.2 homicides per 100,000 whereas the U.S. has 5.0 (i.e. over 4 x's higher).

Still think UK is more violent?


http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

[HudsonGator]

Why guess? Statistics are available. From a 2009 story:



Even the right to self defense in England has been questioned:



There are also harrowing quotes from Andrew Lloyd Weber and Joan Collins in the full article.

linky (http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik/print)

I am not talking about "total crime," I am talking about homicides, and someone in the US is far more likely to be a victim of homicide than someone in the UK.


And btw, quoting from The American Spectator is about on the same level as quoting Fox News; it is not how one wins an argument, rather is betrays one’s own bias.

[Dreamliner]

Nice try, but there is nothing in that article that even remotely supports your argument aside from political rhetoric coming from a member of the conservative party prior to the last parliamentary election. I see no statistics in that article comparing violent crime in the UK to the US. Here’s the entire article you linked in case you would like to read it again.







Let's look at real data, shall we?

The UK has 1.2 homicides per 100,000 whereas the U.S. has 5.0 (i.e. over 4 x's higher).

Still think UK is more violent?


http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

Yes, because violence extends beyond homicides. So, no, I'm not going against the article.

Look, I too have spent loads of time in the US major cities. But never mind me, I've never known ANYONE who's been shot at in a big city.

Your irrational fear of guns has you unbalanced.

[HudsonGator]

Read the article again. There is nothing in it that even compares violent/non-homicide crime in the U.S. versus the UK. You have not provided anything to support your original point.

Further, as I mentioned before, I own guns and I served in the infantry, I've been around more guns and more deadly types of guns than probably most people on this board, and I don't have an "irrational fear" of them.

My point remains, too many people die in this country from gun violence. That is not an "irrational fear," that is a fact.

[Dreamliner]

Read the article again. There is nothing in it that even compares violent/non-homicide crime in the U.S. versus the UK. You have not provided anything to support your original point.

Further, as I mentioned before, I own guns and I served in the infantry, I've been around more guns and more deadly types of guns than probably most people on this board, and I don't have an "irrational fear" of them.

My point remains, too many people die in this country from gun violence. That is not an "irrational fear," that is a fact.

*sighs* Another UK more violent than US:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Now, if you want to retreat to too many people die in this country from gun violence, I agree. For that matter, too many people die in the UK from guns and other implements.

AND, as long as you don't belong to a gang or buy and sell drugs, you're probably HIGHLY unlikely to be shot at in a US city. Last year I checked, there were 9,000 gun homicides in the US, a nation of nearly 315-million.

And since the majority of those are domestic/gang or drug-related, you are many, MANY times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor. Yet, I'll bet you won't stop going to a doctor.

[Juggernautz]

I have an ex-wife(w\ a gun btw), a German Shepherd, a Yorkie & a attack Sun Conyer all to protect me! Who needs a gun??

[HudsonGator]

*sighs* Another UK more violent than US:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Now, if you want to retreat to too many people die in this country from gun violence, I agree. For that matter, too many people die in the UK from guns and other implements.

AND, as long as you don't belong to a gang or buy and sell drugs, you're probably HIGHLY unlikely to be shot at in a US city. Last year I checked, there were 9,000 gun homicides in the US, a nation of nearly 315-million.

And since the majority of those are domestic/gang or drug-related, you are many, MANY times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor. Yet, I'll bet you won't stop going to a doctor.



I am amazed you continue to post links to articles from the Daily Mail from right before the last parliamentary election as somehow proving your point. All one has to do is to read the actual article and see how weak your arguments continue to be:


...The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured....


Get some actual facts if you want to continue to play, otherwise admit your defeat and go home.

[Dreamliner]

I am amazed you continue to post links to articles from the Daily Mail from right before the last parliamentary election as somehow proving your point. All one has to do is to read the actual article and see how weak your arguments continue to be:





Get some actual facts if you want to continue to play, otherwise admit your defeat and go home.

R-i-g-h-t, because UK violent crime rate plummeted after the last election.

Move to UK or buy a baby blankie.

[HudsonGator]

I guess you give up.

Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you back-stage.

Take care now.

[lacuna]

Ah, I see, the "race" card now. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I used that a lot when I was a lib too. :roll:

You know, the only real racists are the ones who try to make a racial issue out of something. Here's your medal... be proud. :yes:

Nice attempt to deflect and sidestep. I'm guessing you don't want to answer the question as to why you thought it necessary to point out the "guy" who frightened you was black?

[Dreamliner]

I guess you give up.

Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you back-stage.

Take care now.

They're telling me I've won a $25 gift certificate. I'm going to use it to buy you a bigger baby blankie. PM me your address if interested.

[Minister_of_Information]

how is that? If you consider this board a reasonable sample size for the U.S., the number of people that just want to shoot another human being is staggering. I am thankful that this board weighs heavily towards the angry, dyspeptic old white rightwinger meme, so it doesn't really reflect reality - but it still is "a lot" of people out there by my definition. I will take a wild stab and say a couple million gun owners in the U.S. are slightly hoping for a robber to come bumbling into their house so they can finally shoot those guns they spend every weekend polishing in circles with six other dudes just like them.

Sounds like someone just let their favorite fantasy slip.

[HudsonGator]

They're telling me I've won a $25 gift certificate. I'm going to use it to buy you a bigger baby blankie. PM me your address if interested.


That's nice of you, but I would use it to get a frame for your DeVry University diploma.

[Dreamliner]

To my mind, the number of people in the White House and Pentagon who want to shoot somebody is staggering.

[Minister_of_Information]

I own a couple of shotguns (used to be duck hunter) and a couple of pistols (given to me by my father), but I will tell you, I spent time in London, and there is something nice about a society that isn't armed. While there is always going to be some crime in a major city like London, it is nice to know no matter what neighborhood you are in, there is almost no possibility that you are going to get shot.

I would give up my guns tomorrow if we could have a society like that here.

I wouldn't.

[Dreamliner]

That's nice of you, but I would use it to get a frame for your DeVry University diploma.

Don't knock it, pal. At least they're strong on statistics.

[HudsonGator]

A pity it was lost on you.

[Dreamliner]

A pity it was lost on you.

Well, not being a liberal arts school, I lost out on the opportunity to take the Colorful Anecdotes and Urban Legends course you seem to have had.

[Minister_of_Information]

Want to end 90% of the violence in the US tomorrow?

Legalize drugs.

[Dreamliner]

Want to end 90% of the violence in the US tomorrow?

Legalize drugs.

that's what I'm talking about.

But if gun deaths dropped from 9,000 a year, to 900 a year, then we couldn't be afraid of guns.

[HudsonGator]

Well, not being a liberal arts school, I lost out on the opportunity to take the Colorful Anecdotes and Urban Legends course you seem to have had.

And don't forget about reading comprehension, one of my strongest subjects, but alas, one I am afraid seems to have eluded you.

[HudsonGator]

Want to end 90% of the violence in the US tomorrow?

Legalize drugs.


First time I can remember ever agreeing with one of your posts.

[Minister_of_Information]

First time I can remember ever agreeing with one of your posts.

I hate to break up a streak.

[Dreamliner]

Yeah, it nearly killed me.

[Minister_of_Information]

Yeah, it nearly killed me.

I'm already missing the sweet and subtle scent of your opprobrium. Perhaps I made an error somewhere.

[CalSFGator]

The only problem with the UK versus US violent crime statistics is that they aren't apples to apples, as we define "violent" crime differently. I still think they are, on average, higher in hooliganism, but it's not like they are strangling and stabbing everyone to death because they can't get guns. Still, lots and lots of bar fights, hold ups (without guns) and car thefts that make up those stats. They are a pretty violent people, it's our heritage.

[wargunfan]

I always get a kick out of the folks who like to blame "old white men" for all the ills of the country. By extension they must believe that the opposite would be an improvement. Perhaps they can give us a vivid picture of what the country would look like under the leadership of young black women.

[CalSFGator]

I always get a kick out of the folks who like to blame "old white men" for all the ills of the country. By extension they must believe that the opposite would be an improvement. Perhaps they can give us a vivid picture of what the country would look like under the leadership of young black women.

Sassier and longer painted nails?

I don't blame any single group for the ills of the country. We have always had ills, and we probably always will. I get annoyed by those that are too scared of change to let us address them. Lot's of old white guys in that category, but it's far from just them.

[geauxgator1]

Sounds like the wild west.....shooting outside the home a fleeing assailants. What if innocent people were out for a walk or some kids were playing nearby.

Gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean one has good judgement or aim. Higher capacity magazines mean more bullets are flying, more chance to kill an innocent bystander.

And more chances to kill the perp or in many cases multiple perps.

[SECund2nun]

Read the article again. There is nothing in it that even compares violent/non-homicide crime in the U.S. versus the UK. You have not provided anything to support your original point.

Further, as I mentioned before, I own guns and I served in the infantry, I've been around more guns and more deadly types of guns than probably most people on this board, and I don't have an "irrational fear" of them.

My point remains, too many people die in this country from gun violence. That is not an "irrational fear," that is a fact.

Switzerland however has the highest gun ownership rates but they have the lowest violent crime rate on earth.

[rivergator]

Switzerland however has the highest gun ownership rates but they have the lowest violent crime rate on earth.

Actually, the US has the highest gun ownership rates.

[PIMking]

It still doesn't matter River, it's still shows a crap load of weapons are in Swiss hands but why don't they have issues with people killing each other? you cant mandate laws to fix the ordeal except enforce the laws on the books now instead adding more redundant laws to the books.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I spent time in London, and there is something nice about a society that isn't armed. While there is always going to be some crime in a major city like London, it is nice to know no matter what neighborhood you are in, there is almost no possibility that you are going to get shot..

Did you know that the UK has, by far, more violent crimes per capita than the USA? By far. Look it up.

Did you know that UK has, by far, more rapes than the US. By far. Look it up.

But it is true they have fewer homicides per capita.

Is gun ownership negatively correlated with rape and violent crime but positively correlated with homicides? Very few studies support either of these positions. But they are fun to talk about.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The only problem with the UK versus US violent crime statistics is that they aren't apples to apples, as we define "violent" crime differently. I still think they are, on average, higher in hooliganism, but it's not like they are strangling and stabbing everyone to death because they can't get guns. Still, lots and lots of bar fights, hold ups (without guns) and car thefts that make up those stats. They are a pretty violent people, it's our heritage.

They are comparable enough.

[rivergator]

Did you know that the UK has, by far, more violent crimes per capita than the USA? By far. Look it up.

Did you know that UK has, by far, more rapes than the US. By far. Look it up.

But it is true they have fewer homicides per capita.

Is gun ownership negatively correlated with rape and violent crime but positively correlated with homicides? Very few studies support either of these positions. But they are fun to talk about.

Rapes per 100,000:
US - 28.6
England and Wales - 27.7

link (http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf)

[HudsonGator]

Did you know that the UK has, by far, more violent crimes per capita than the USA? By far. Look it up.

Did you know that UK has, by far, more rapes than the US. By far. Look it up.

But it is true they have fewer homicides per capita.

Is gun ownership negatively correlated with rape and violent crime but positively correlated with homicides? Very few studies support either of these positions. But they are fun to talk about.

If you want to make that kind of argument, provide some support for your conclusory statements.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

If you want to make that kind of argument, provide some support for your conclusory statements.

I invited you to do so. But you are apparently too lazy. From the UK daily mail. The USA in not even in the top ten.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg




Violent crime in the USA is 386.3 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1)

[rivergator]

I invited you to do so. But you are apparently too lazy. From the UK daily mail. The USA in not even in the top ten.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg




Violent crime in the USA is 386.3 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1)


First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

link (http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/)

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Rapes per 100,000:
US - 28.6
England and Wales - 27.7

link (http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf)

Yea, I saw that. Hmmm...must have gotten some bad data. I remember reading this a few weeks back but could not find my data source. The one you offer seems legitimate, if a bit dated. It was done in 2007. That said, in 2011, the rape rate in the USA has dropped to 26.8 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1)

It IS interesting the the UK has almost 3 times the assault rate as the USA. Of which rape is a subset.

[rivergator]

A little more clarity on violent crimes. Among the things that fall under 'violent crimes' in the UK: Soliciting a prostitute and bicycle theft. Burglaries are included in violent crime stats in the UK, not in the US.
Think that might skew the rates just a bit?

ccording to the FBI, there are four crimes classified as "violent" in crime statistics: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The list does not include burglaries, which is considered a property crime in the U.S. but a violent crime in the U.K.

In addition to murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault and burglary, England and Wales classify domestic violence and all sexual offenses - not just forcible rape - as violent.

Scotland and Northern Ireland compile their own statistics and systems.

In England and Wales, sexual offenses and domestic violence contain a wide range of offenses and make up a significant part of the overall number of their violent crimes.

Sexual offenses include rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with children, soliciting prostitutes (but not prostitution itself), sexual threats, sexual touching and indecent exposure.

Domestic abuse, described as a form of "intimate personal violence," includes the following: non-sexual emotional or financial abuse, threats, physical force, sexual assault and stalking carried out by a current or former partner or other family member.

Several other crimes that are classified as violent in the U.K. include vehicle theft, purse-snatching and bicycle theft.

In all, the definition of "violent crime" takes approximately six pages to thoroughly explain. It is found in a user guide to crime statistics published by the Home Office, a U.K. government department addressing crime.

link (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20549515/do-guns-stop-violence-the-us-has-more-rapes-and-murders-than-uk)

[HudsonGator]

A little more clarity on violent crimes. Among the things that fall under 'violent crimes' in the UK: Soliciting a prostitute and bicycle theft. Burglaries are included in violent crime stats in the UK, not in the US.
Think that might skew the rates just a bit?

Bingo!

[HudsonGator]

I invited you to do so. But you are apparently too lazy. From the UK daily mail. The USA in not even in the top ten.

Not lazy, just knew that you couldn't do it (and obviously quoting from the Daily Mail doesn't cut it).


A little bit of knowledge...

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Not lazy, just knew that you couldn't do it (and obviously quoting from the Daily Mail doesn't cut it).


A little bit of knowledge...

Oh.MY.Goodness.

Another example of the reality based community

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Think that might skew the rates just a bit?

Yet you had no problems using the same sources for comparing rape?

Rape is probably one of the most inconsistently describe violent crime among all violent crimes.

BTW, stealing a bike while using force is a violent crime. As is any crime where the use of force is instituted. And sexual offenses and domestic violence are also part of aggravated assault in the USA. The article you use suggests they are not.

If you used just one tenth of scrutiny for AGW as you do here, you would be calling them alarmists too.

[rivergator]

Yet you had no problems using the same sources for comparing rape?

Rape is probably one of the most inconsistently describe violent crime among all violent crimes.

BTW, stealing a bike while using force is a violent crime. As is any crime where the use of force is instituted. And sexual offenses and domestic violence are also part of aggravated assault in the USA. The article you use suggests they are not.

If you used just one tenth of scrutiny for AGW as you do here, you would be calling them alarmists too.

Come on. You tried to compare violent crime rates in the US and UK to prove that the UK was much more violent. It's pretty obvious the two countries use entirely different definitions. If the US added every burglary, every bicycle theft, every 'financial abuse' between a domestic into its violent crime stats, the numbers would obviously be very different.

[HudsonGator]

Oh.MY.Goodness.

Another example of the reality based community

Is that supposed to be an argument?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

An armed elderly man in Dallas shot and killed a suspected burglar after finding him trying to break into his Dallas home this week. However, he was also forced to defend his actions after the would-be robber's family showed up at his home.


The homeowner, a repeat burglary victim, found 33-year-old Deyfon Pipkins attempting to climb in the house through the window and fired at least one shot at the criminal, hitting his target.


Dallas police Sgt. Calvin Johnson tolk KDFW-TV that the homeowner is covered by the so-called "Castle Doctrine," which provides legal protection to gun owners in Texas and other states who are forced to use deadly force against a home intruder.

"It means they don't actually have to retreat once someone comes in their home," Johnson said. "You have the option of using deadly force if you believe your life is in danger."


Once police identified the suspect as Pipkins, officers notified his family. Some of those family members showed up at the house and expressed their anger at the homeowner for not issuing a "warning."

"He could have used a warning," Lakesha Thompson, Pipkins' sister-in-law, said. "He could have let him know that he did have a gun on his property and he would use it in self-defense."


The suspect reportedly had a extensive criminal record and had served time in prison. He was previously convicted of theft, possession of a controlled substance and criminal trespassing.


Police have not charged the homeowner with any crime, but Dallas police will now refer the case to the Grand Jury to determine whether he followed the law when he killed the home intruder.'

[GolphinGator]

Oh well, at least Lakesha and the rest of his family have their warning.

[helix139]

Police have not charged the homeowner with any crime, but Dallas police will now refer the case to the Grand Jury to determine whether he followed the law when he killed the home intruder.'

Unfortunately this probably means he'll have to spend time and money to defend himself in court. As they say, a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich.

[Lawdog88]

Well, when the police are too weenish to take the heat and do the right thing based on obvious facts, they sometimes sanitize their hands with a referral to the Grand Jury.

PR and all that.

[GolphinGator]

Unfortunately this probably means he'll have to spend time and money to defend himself in court. As they say, a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich.

Not if I was on this one.

[wygator]

Once police identified the suspect as Pipkins, officers notified his family. Some of those family members showed up at the house and expressed their anger at the homeowner for not issuing a "warning."

"He could have used a warning," Lakesha Thompson, Pipkins' sister-in-law, said. "He could have let him know that he did have a gun on his property and he would use it in self-defense."

http://www.bigwilliestyles.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ammo-price-increase-no-warning-shot-sign.jpg

[helix139]

In Florida warning shots are actually illegal

[PIMking]

A little more clarity on violent crimes. Among the things that fall under 'violent crimes' in the UK: Soliciting a prostitute and bicycle theft. Burglaries are included in violent crime stats in the UK, not in the US.
Think that might skew the rates just a bit?



link (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20549515/do-guns-stop-violence-the-us-has-more-rapes-and-murders-than-uk)

That's like the Brady Campaign using suicides by guns as part of their gun hate propoganda

[rivergator]

That's like the Brady Campaign using suicides by guns as part of their gun hate propoganda

that seems to make no sense. would you care to explain?
actually, do you understand that MJ's comparison of UK and US violent crime rates and claim the UK had far more was completely bogus because the two countries have completely different definitions of 'violent crime?'

[GolphinGator]

In Florida warning shots are actually illegal

Yea, well you better call Joe Biden and tell him. As I see the thing this guy says I think we all need to hope the President stays healthy.

[PIMking]

that seems to make no sense. would you care to explain?
actually, do you understand that MJ's comparison of UK and US violent crime rates and claim the UK had far more was completely bogus because the two countries have completely different definitions of 'violent crime?'

Brady has used suicide in all their "gun related crime/death" crap to scare more people into thinking that they're better off with only the criminals having them.

[HudsonGator]

Since Australia imposed severe gun restrictions in 1996 and undertook a government buy-back program the numbers are as follows:

In Australia, annual firearm homicides total

2010: 30
2009: 36
2008: 27
2007: 28
2006: 41
2005: 15
2004: 15
2003: 54
2002: 45
2001: 47
2000: 57
1999: 50
1998: 57
1997: 79
1996: 104 - landmark gun legislation passed
1995: 67
1994: 76
1993: 64
1992: 96
1991: 84
1990: 79
1989: 80
1988: 123

It would seem on average gun murders have been significantly reduced.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

[HudsonGator]

"Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. . . . I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

That was Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's first appointee to the Supreme Court, answering a question at her 2009 confirmation hearing from Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. She was referring to District of Columbia v. Heller, which astonishingly was the first Supreme Court decision ever to recognize this fundamental right. Sotomayor's statement was a careful one. She did not say that she agreed with Heller or even that she would respect it as precedent. She could easily turn out to "understand" it and wish to wipe it from the books.

And she did. In 2010 the court decided McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the "incorporation" doctrine to the Second Amendment--that is, it held that the amendment, coupled with the 14th, forbids states as well as the feds from encroaching on the right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor (along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) joined Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent, which flatly asserted: "The Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense."

McDonald, like Heller, was decided 5-4. One of the dissenters, Justice John Paul Stevens, has since retired from the court. His successor, Justice Elena Kagan, has not yet had occasion to cast a vote in a gun-rights case (and as solicitor general she did not file a brief in McDonald). But we are going to go out on a limb and guess that she agrees with Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor that the Second Amendment is essentially a nullity.

If that is correct, then the court is one vote away from having a majority to reverse Heller. Two of the justices in the pro-Second Amendment majority, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, will be 80 by the end of the next presidential term. If either or both of them were to leave the court during a second Obama term, it is far likelier than not that an Obama appointee would join what is now the minority to kill the Second Amendment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444025204577544881193377296.html

[Lawdog88]

Since Australia imposed severe gun restrictions in 1996 and undertook a government buy-back program the numbers are as follows:

In Australia, annual firearm homicides total

2010: 30
2009: 36
2008: 27
2007: 28
2006: 41
2005: 15
2004: 15
2003: 54
2002: 45
2001: 47
2000: 57
1999: 50
1998: 57
1997: 79
1996: 104 - landmark gun legislation passed
1995: 67
1994: 76
1993: 64
1992: 96
1991: 84
1990: 79
1989: 80
1988: 123

It would seem on average gun murders have been significantly reduced.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia


Rhetorical question: I wonder how many of the murders since the gun ban could have been prevented by the use of firearms ?

[gatorman_07732]

Since Australia imposed severe gun restrictions in 1996 and undertook a government buy-back program the numbers are as follows:

In Australia, annual firearm homicides total

2010: 30
2009: 36
2008: 27
2007: 28
2006: 41
2005: 15
2004: 15
2003: 54
2002: 45
2001: 47
2000: 57
1999: 50
1998: 57
1997: 79
1996: 104 - landmark gun legislation passed
1995: 67
1994: 76
1993: 64
1992: 96
1991: 84
1990: 79
1989: 80
1988: 123

It would seem on average gun murders have been significantly reduced.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

To be far in 1997 35 people were killed by one person. It's easy to throw around numbers without information

[HudsonGator]

To be far in 1997 35 people were killed by one person. It's easy to throw around numbers without information


Even if one were to ignore 1996 for that reason, it is still readily apparent gun murders have on average declined dramatically since 1996.

1998 - 2010 - 38.6 avg. gun murders per year
1989 - 1995 - 78.0 avg. gun murders per year

[gatorman_07732]

Even if one were to ignore 1996 for that reason, it is still readily apparent gun murders have on average declined dramatically since 1996.

1998 - 2010 - 38.6 avg. gun murders per year
1889 - 1995 - 78.0 avg. gun murders per year

The other thing is a large part of these murders were happening between motorcycle gangs. It make is a easier to pin point the problem and eradicate it. Not sure how you can compare this with the U.S. that is much more diverse.

[wygator]

Since Australia imposed severe gun restrictions in 1996 and undertook a government buy-back program the numbers are as follows:

In Australia, annual firearm homicides total

2010: 30
2009: 36
2008: 27
2007: 28
2006: 41
2005: 15
2004: 15
2003: 54
2002: 45
2001: 47
2000: 57
1999: 50
1998: 57
1997: 79
1996: 104 - landmark gun legislation passed
1995: 67
1994: 76
1993: 64
1992: 96
1991: 84
1990: 79
1989: 80
1988: 123

It would seem on average gun murders have been significantly reduced.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

To be meaningful, we would need to compare the total murder rate for the same years. Were total murders actually reduced by the gun ban, or only murders with guns?

[wargunfan]

Australia is 92% white, 7% Asian and 1% aborignal. These are racial groups that are not noted for killing each other. The US by contrast is plagued by violence in the ghettos which exist in every city of any size in the nation. This violence has spread as poverty and unemployment has persisted in the country. The US has a prison system which is so overcrowded that all but the most violent criminals are released early. The recidivism rate in the US for violent offenders is over 67%. Our streets are not safe:
Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release.

Summary findings

During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

The homicide rate in lily white Australia in not instructive for us. Even before the weapons ban the homicide rate there was minuscule compared to the US. The only thing that Australia can teach us is that we must be ever vigilant against the gun grabbers.

[HudsonGator]

Australia is 92% white, 7% Asian and 1% aborignal. These are racial groups that are not noted for killing each other. The US by contrast is plagued by violence in the ghettos...The homicide rate in lily white Australia....


And there it is folks.

[surfn1080]

And there it is folks.

What that he stated the hard truth of the matter? It's something our country has been plagued by for decades.

[Tebowism0823]

Taking guns away will do nothing but take them out of the law abiding citizens hands. The thugs, both government and bangers, will still have theirs.

[rivergator]

No matter what the makeup of the country, Australia's gun gun control certainly seems to have reduced the murder rate substantially.

[Tebowism0823]

No matter what the makeup of the country, Australia's gun gun control certainly seems to have reduced the murder rate substantially.

That's not true at all. So far the stats are assaults involving guns have increased more than 25% and murders with a gun rose nearly 20%.

Www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/12/15/the-Aussie-lesson-less-guns-more-crime

[SurfinG8or]

Taking guns away will do nothing but take them out of the law abiding citizens hands. The thugs, both government and bangers, will still have theirs.

That is the main point in this argument that the gun control folks completely ingnore. You can restrict the law abiding citizens through passed laws to a degree. But when that is done you empower the people that don't give a shit about the laws that are in place. And that is my biggest issue. The criminals will still have guns no matter what, and if they don't have them they will use knives, bats or any other tool that will give them the upper hand.

[rivergator]

That's not true at all. So far the stats are assaults involving guns have increased more than 25% and murders with a gun rose nearly 20%.

Www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/12/15/the-Aussie-lesson-less-guns-more-crime

Of course, the Breitbart writer doesn't list any source, doesn't give any specific numbers or say what years he's talking about. But a few posts up you see a sourced year by year list of gun murders that shows a significant decrease.

[Lawdog88]

And there it is folks.


And there is what ? (Non-rhetorical question mark).

Do explain.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

No matter what the makeup of the country, Australia's gun gun control certainly seems to have reduced the murder rate substantially.

I believe that stat was for the gun murder rate. Not the overall murder rate.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Here is the revealing thing. In most states in the USA, gun laws have become a lot less restrictive for 20 plus years. Yet gun violence, homicide rates, rapes and other violent crimes have declined. When people suggest that this means more guns, less violence, the liberal view screams that correlation is not causation. They may be right. Yet, as we can see here, the resident liberals here have no compunction claiming that increasing gun control in Australia is responsible for similar reductions in violence.

Of course they want it both ways. as usual.

[Minister_of_Information]

Here is the revealing thing. In most states in the USA, gun laws have become a lot less restrictive for 20 plus years. Yet gun violence, homicide rates, rapes and other violent crimes have declined. When people suggest that this means more guns, less violence, the liberal view screams that correlation is not causation. They may be right. Yet, as we can see here, the resident liberals here have no compunction claiming that increasing gun control in Australia is responsible for similar reductions in violence.

Of course they want it both ways. as usual.

That is a very good argument.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

In rough neighborhoods, a gun is necessary

Deputies say a 51-year-old man broke into the home where a 24-year-old man and his wife were sleeping. The owner called 911, then armed himself with a pistol while waiting for deputies to arrive. At one point, the suspect charged down a hallway toward the homeowner, who fired a shot, hitting the suspect. The two men then became involved in struggle until the suspect was able to break free. The homeowner held the suspect at gunpoint until deputies arrived.

A witness said he saw the suspect Sunday morning rummaging through boxes on his patio. The witness chased him away. Bradd Reynolds, a retired cop, runs the neighborhood watch group.

"I think it proves the point that we need guns," he said. "I am always armed. Everybody involved in the scenario last night was part of our neighborhood watch program with the exception of the guy laying in Harborview with a bullet in him,” he said.

Reynolds set up the watch because of a house he believes has had a steady stream of bad tenants. The suspect was living there, and told police he was on meth. A woman who answered the door Sunday had no comment. The home is a reason why most people there say they have guns. Neighbors were warned about the person in the shooting just hours before. The watch said, watch out.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Homeowner-shoots-intruder-190591971.html

[wargunfan]

No matter what the makeup of the country, Australia's gun gun control certainly seems to have reduced the murder rate substantially.

We don't know how many homicides were caused by guns. The point remains that Australia and the US are nothing alike in demographics, and the causes of violence in the populace. Australia teaches us nothing which is applicable to the US.

[wargunfan]

I own a couple of shotguns (used to be duck hunter) and a couple of pistols (given to me by my father), but I will tell you, I spent time in London, and there is something nice about a society that isn't armed. While there is always going to be some crime in a major city like London, it is nice to know no matter what neighborhood you are in, there is almost no possibility that you are going to get shot.

I would give up my guns tomorrow if we could have a society like that here.

You accidentally stumbled onto a cogent point. We don't have a society like that here. The gang bangers don't break for tea at 3 pm. If I could go through life with no fear of injury or death on the street or in my home I would still keep my arms. The biggest villain of all still percolates in DC.

[Minister_of_Information]

The number of lives saved (allegedly) by a gun ban is completely irrelevant to me.

[Tebowism0823]

Of course, the Breitbart writer doesn't list any source, doesn't give any specific numbers or say what years he's talking about. But a few posts up you see a sourced year by year list of gun murders that shows a significant decrease.

There were others out there as well with the same exact numbers. Feel free to dispute with ACCURATE info.

[rivergator]

There were others out there as well with the same exact numbers. Feel free to dispute with ACCURATE info.

Wait a minute. Someone already posted the year by year gun homicides, with a source. And it showed they clearly decreased.
You posted someone claiming they increased by 20 percent. He gave no source. He gave no totals. He didn't say what year he was talking about. Just '20 percent.'
And you others to present accurate info?

[ncgatr1]

First I injure my home invader with my Bertha Thunder 380 and than I precede to empty my Sig P226 clip into them. I also have told my Lib neighbors that if you get home invaded, since none of them carry firearms, I would be glad to come over and shoot them.

[Lawdog88]

Machete or brush hook is more thrilling than firearms, if you like getting up close and personal.

http://i47.tinypic.com/24bqi5u.jpg

[dogzilla]

I'm pretty sure this family is thankful for the 2nd Amendment even though someone died:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/21-year-old-protects-family-kills-suspect-during-home-invasion-in-NW-Harris-County-192475271.html

After the father was down, the suspects went after the mother. That is when the son ran and got his dad’s gun. He opened fire and hit one of the suspects, who died in the back bedroom. The other two suspects fled the scene.

[HudsonGator]

That's not true at all. So far the stats are assaults involving guns have increased more than 25% and murders with a gun rose nearly 20%.

Www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/12/15/the-Aussie-lesson-less-guns-more-crime

No, the stats are mentioned in my post above.

Gun murders were essentially cut in half.

[HudsonGator]

And there is what ? (Non-rhetorical question mark).

Do explain.

You're a bright lad, I'm sure you can figure it out.

[Minister_of_Information]

You're a bright lad, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Don't worry. We already have some time ago. :/

[ncgatr1]

Machete or brush hook is more thrilling than firearms, if you like getting up close and personal.

http://i47.tinypic.com/24bqi5u.jpg

You must have received machete training in Soweto.

[wargunfan]

My home defense weapon
http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/0jdc2r4tsl9qtazva.jpg
plus this one on the night table
http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/vcfwf9u65pvoi4u18el.jpg

[Minister_of_Information]

December 14, 2012 was the day I had chosen to purchase a Benelli M4/11707.

I've since realized that a combat-ized Remington 870 is a lot more bang (ha) for the buck.

[HudsonGator]

And there is what ? (Non-rhetorical question mark).

Do explain.


If you can't figure it out, I can't really help you.

[HudsonGator]

My home defense weapon
http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/0jdc2r4tsl9qtazva.jpg
plus this one on the night table
http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/vcfwf9u65pvoi4u18el.jpg

You sound as though you hope to be able to use these one day.

For your sake I truly hope you never have to.

Taking someone's life isn't like a video game.

It will stay with you the rest of your life.

[Minister_of_Information]

You sound as though you hope to be able to use these one day.

For your sake I truly hope you never have to.

Taking someone's life isn't like a video game.

It will stay with you the rest of your life.

True, but it beats having your family raped and murdered in front of your eyes as you watch helplessly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

[Lawdog88]

If you can't figure it out, I can't really help you.


You can't really help anybody, actually, figure anything out, as evidenced by your comments on this thread.

[Lawdog88]

You must have received machete training in Soweto.


Land surveying crews, Texas, NW Florida, circa: 1972-'75; boyhood spent in the woods, much, much earlier.

[HudsonGator]

:yes:You can't really help anybody, actually, figure anything out, as evidenced by your comments on this thread.

What a clever retort, I can see it took you some time to compose this, good work.

[The_Graygator]

You sound as though you hope to be able to use these one day.

For your sake I truly hope you never have to.

Taking someone's life isn't like a video game.

It will stay with you the rest of your life.



Where did he say he "wanted to use those weapons to kill someone"? You should work for the LMSM, you'd probably be good at it. lol

Btw, libs were the ones who ridiculed the NRA president for suggesting video games as one of the reasons why these crazies gun people down like the Newtown, Ct. massacre, but now it ONLY applies to a legal, law-abiding gun owner? :huh:

Get your stories straight. :wink: :roll:

[The_Graygator]

Here is the revealing thing. In most states in the USA, gun laws have become a lot less restrictive for 20 plus years. Yet gun violence, homicide rates, rapes and other violent crimes have declined. When people suggest that this means more guns, less violence, the liberal view screams that correlation is not causation. They may be right. Yet, as we can see here, the resident liberals here have no compunction claiming that increasing gun control in Australia is responsible for similar reductions in violence.

Of course they want it both ways. as usual.


That's just it though... it's all about being sheeple; never questioning the agenda of their party or the liberal media.

Follow, be led... but don't think for yourself, no matter how ridiculous or outrageous the cause.

And if they disagree with you? Call 'em a racist, or a hate-mongerer, or a "nut" of some sort, or an "evil rich guy", etc. :roll:

That's what I did when I ws a liberal.

[Lawdog88]

:yes:

What a clever retort, I can see it took you some time to compose this, good work.


Yes, it was clever . . . and quite accurate. Thank you.

[DaveFla]

Nice attempt to deflect and sidestep. I'm guessing you don't want to answer the question as to why you thought it necessary to point out the "guy" who frightened you was black?

Why was it important for him to point out it was a "guy" for that matter...

You're digging to find something that just isn't there.

[HudsonGator]

Where did he say he "wanted to use those weapons to kill someone"? You should work for the LMSM, you'd probably be good at it. lol

I have no idea what LMSM is, but I already have a job. Thanks for your concern though.

Btw, libs were the ones who ridiculed the NRA president for suggesting video games as one of the reasons why these crazies gun people down like the Newtown, Ct. massacre, but now it ONLY applies to a legal, law-abiding gun owner? :huh:

Reading comprehension is a problem I see. Nowhere did I say video games have anything to do with gun violence. I was simply pointing out that killing an actual live human being is not like doing it on a video game, something which I understand a lot of young men waste a lot of their time doing these days. Wayne LaPierre is very easy to ridicule, by the way.

Aren't you the guy that is famous for "filtering" people? Feel free to add me to your filter list. It would probably be good for both of us.

[WESGATORS]

To be meaningful, we would need to compare the total murder rate for the same years. Were total murders actually reduced by the gun ban, or only murders with guns?

Very good question, and I believe the answer is that the murder rate was not impacted by the legislation. Here's an interesting read on it if you're interested:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

SUMMARY: The homicide rates provide no support for a proposition that the ban/buyback has helped. However, they also do not indicate that the ban/buyback caused anything, good or bad.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[HudsonGator]

Very good question, and I believe the answer is that the murder rate was not impacted by the legislation. Here's an interesting read on it if you're interested:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html



Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS


From your article:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/homihisty.gif

[WESGATORS]

Notice how even in that image you see a slight trend of increased homicide rate while there is a decrease trend of gun homicide rate from '96 through '01.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[The_Graygator]

I have no idea what LMSM is, but I already have a job. Thanks for your concern though.



Reading comprehension is a problem I see. Nowhere did I say video games have anything to do with gun violence. I was simply pointing out that killing an actual live human being is not like doing it on a video game, something which I understand a lot of young men waste a lot of their time doing these days. Wayne LaPierre is very easy to ridicule, by the way.

Aren't you the guy that is famous for "filtering" people? Feel free to add me to your filter list. It would probably be good for both of us.



So you can't deny what I alleged and can only respond with "reading comprehension"? :laugh:

You threw it out there and now you can't side-step it or back-pedal from it.

Of course LaPierre is easy for you to ridicule, you've been instructed to dislike him because he objects to what our supreme Monarch wants.

That's a good little liberal. :yes:

Perhaps a cookie as a reward? :laugh:

[HudsonGator]

So you can't deny what I alleged and can only respond with "reading comprehension"? :laugh:

You threw it out there and now you can't side-step it or back-pedal from it.

I threw it out there, and apparently you still can't understand it.

I am afraid I can't make it any simpler for you.

[lacuna]

Why was it important for him to point out it was a "guy" for that matter...

You're digging to find something that just isn't there.

Am I? Right now I'm think Gray is probably wishing you hadn't resurrected my question of him.

Earlier in the thread Gray wrote:
when I parked my car in my own driveway and got out, there was a black guy dressed head to toe in all black clothes and his face hidden by a hoodie standing about 10 feet behind my car.

Scared the total crap out of me.

It wasn't "important [or even necessary] for him to point out it was a 'guy'." He chose that word when other words could have similarly conveyed the fact it was a 'man' or a 'person' or a 'human being' standing in his driveway. He also could have written it was 'some jerk' or 'some idiot' "dressed head to toe in all black."

He chose "guy." Fine. I asked him why he thought it necessary to inform readers of the thread it was a "black guy." He deflected and side stepped my question and made a pathetic attempt to imply I was a racist for asking it. He postured and overused emoticons, but he never answered the question as to why he thought it necessary to point out the person who frightened him and trespassed in his yard was black.

Gray probably doesn't have a ready answer that he feels comfortable sharing on the thread. He strikes me as being a reactionary and shallow thinker. If he delved into his own inner mental processes he might self expose himself as being one of the sheeple he accuses others of being.

Racism is subtle and insidious. It's likely many of us are racist and not consciously aware of it. I know I once found I had a racist perception I was not aware I had. Discovering this about myself has made me more aware of racist attitudes in people who might not be aware they harbor them. Their speech - and their writing - reveals a darker truth.

In 1976 my husband and I moved from one state to another and used Bekins Van Lines as our carrier. A three man crew moved our furniture from the house onto the van. They were careful and efficient. I had some question or concern and needed to speak to the driver, the man who generally heads a long distance moving crew. One of the 3 men was hardly out of his teens so I knew he wasn't the driver. The second man was black and the third was an older white man in his 50's. I went to the older man with my question and was in turn directed by him to the black man. It was an eye opening experience for me.

[Minister_of_Information]

lacuna I suspect you may be reading emphasis where there is none. I don't think any particular attention was drawn to the race of the person concerned. Being colorblind works both ways, for both good and bad behavior.

[lacuna]

MOI - Perhaps. I'd still like Gray to answer the question.

[WESGATORS]

This white guy I used to work with used to do the same thing.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wygator]

Am I? Right now I'm think Gray is probably wishing you hadn't resurrected my question of him.

Earlier in the thread Gray wrote:


It wasn't "important [or even necessary] for him to point out it was a 'guy'." He chose that word when other words could have similarly conveyed the fact it was a 'man' or a 'person' or a 'human being' standing in his driveway. He also could have written it was 'some jerk' or 'some idiot' "dressed head to toe in all black."

He chose "guy." Fine. I asked him why he thought it necessary to inform readers of the thread it was a "black guy." He deflected and side stepped my question and made a pathetic attempt to imply I was a racist for asking it. He postured and overused emoticons, but he never answered the question as to why he thought it necessary to point out the person who frightened him and trespassed in his yard was black.

Gray probably doesn't have a ready answer that he feels comfortable sharing on the thread. He strikes me as being a reactionary and shallow thinker. If he delved into his own inner mental processes he might self expose himself as being one of the sheeple he accuses others of being.

Racism is subtle and insidious. It's likely many of us are racist and not consciously aware of it. I know I once found I had a racist perception I was not aware I had. Discovering this about myself has made me more aware of racist attitudes in people who might not be aware they harbor them. Their speech - and their writing - reveals a darker truth.

In 1976 my husband and I moved from one state to another and used Bekins Van Lines as our carrier. A three man crew moved our furniture from the house onto the van. They were careful and efficient. I had some question or concern and needed to speak to the driver, the man who generally heads a long distance moving crew. One of the 3 men was hardly out of his teens so I knew he wasn't the driver. The second man was black and the third was an older white man in his 50's. I went to the older man with my question and was in turn directed by him to the black man. It was an eye opening experience for me.

Just a description of the perp...

[HudsonGator]

He postured and overused emoticons...

That seems to be a pattern with him.

[DaveFla]

It's a disturbing trend on the local news to try to remain PC. Many times, while attempting to describe a suspect, they omit the race.

I think Gray was merely trying to be descriptive here. There was no such intent as lacuna is insinuating. After all, why use the word "guy"? The sex of the suspect meant as little to the story as his race, after all.

[Lawdog88]

All prudent white and black guys that I know, if presented with the same circumstances as were presented to Gray, would have done basically the same thing.

Some of the more imprudent ones I know, might have ratcheted the situation up a notch or two.

[lacuna]

Just a description of the perp...

It's a disturbing trend on the local news to try to remain PC. Many times, while attempting to describe a suspect, they omit the race.

I think Gray was merely trying to be descriptive here. There was no such intent as lacuna is insinuating. After all, why use the word "guy"? The sex of the suspect meant as little to the story as his race, after all.

Descriptive? Perhaps. But why so explicitly descriptive when the people Gray was relating the story to on Too Hot were not police officers charged with the responsibility of looking for the suspect to detain, question and possibly arrest for theft. There was no need for the Too Hot reader to know the trespasser was black but for the fact Gray, for whatever reason, thought it necessary to make that fact known. Why was that unless he has an agenda or bias he is unaware of having.

"Guy" is the word he chose to denote the trespasser was male. Gray could have used 'person', 'man', or some other word to indicate the trespasser was a male and not a woman approaching him in the dark. It would have been equally offensive for Gray to state he was accosted by a black woman had the trespasser been female. But to designate "guy" (or woman had that been the case) a descriptive term in the same sense the word "black" was a descriptor, is nothing but a strawman.

I rarely watch the local news in Gainesville so I can't say if the news team states the race of suspects on its broadcasts. I do read The Sun daily and know for a fact the racial identity of suspects is stated in printed accounts of local crimes.

It's nice you guys are so interested in providing possible explanations for Gray, but it would be even nicer if Gray returned to the thread to provide his own explanation.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

No doubt there is causation

Kennesaw’s 1982 gun mandate was a direct response to a gun -ban- enacted a year earlier in Morton Grove, Illinois. That was later deemed unconstitutional, but Kennesaw’s law is still on the books.

Added Lt. Graydon, “It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens’ second amendment rights to own firearms.”

After the law went into effect in 1982, city leaders say they witnessed a 29% drop in crime. Over the last 30 years, the crime rate has remained low with just four gun-related homicides.

“Our crime rate is generally less than half the national average,” added Lt. Graydon.

[Minister_of_Information]

I wonder what happened to Morton Grove?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I wondered the same thing.

This is all I could find;

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw - responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. - unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender.


The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available - for the year 2005 - show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/04/20/a-tale-of-two-towns.php

caveat emptor. The article originates from WND.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

“A 22-year-old man found himself facing a summons after he told officers he fired his shotgun repeatedly upon finding masked suspects leaning in his window.” Huh? But the Vice President of these here U-Nited States said firing warning shots with a shotgun is the sine qua non in home defense strategy. Ol’ Double Barrel Joe even confided that he advised his own wife to do just that if she ever felt threatened in their home. Guess that doesn’t apply in Virginia. Trevor Snowden of Virginia Beach “told police his dog was acting strange. When he walked to his bedroom, he said he saw two masked suspects leaning in his open window” . . .

From wavy.com:

Snowden told police the suspects pointed weapons at him and told him to shut the bedroom door. Thinking the suspects were going to rob him, he moved into the hallway and retrieved a shotgun.

Moyers said Snowden fired through his bedroom door, then opened the door and fired several more rounds toward the window. Any suspects fled the area and could not be located by officers.

Snowden’s been charged with reckless handling of a firearm. Since this was all just a misunderstanding – Trevor was obviously just following government sanctioned advice – we’re sure the Veep will be glad to cover his attorney’s fees and any fines that may be assessed."

---From The Truth About Guns

[ncgatr1]

Damn Snowden needs more time at the range.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Civilian shoots would-be robber during attempted bank hold-up

The FBI said a man walked into the bank, showed a weapon and demanded cash. He was shot in the face by a civilian in the bank during the attempted robbery and then left, the FBI said.

Police apparently pursued the car down 169 Highway to I-435 and put down spikes to stop the car. The pursuit ended at I-435 just south of 152 Highway.

http://fox4kc.com/2013/03/01/bank-robbery-suspect-arrested-after-northland-high-speed-chase/

[HudsonGator]

U.S. Gun Deaths Since Sandy Hook Top 1,280
Updated: 02/03/2013 3:32 pm EST


WASHINGTON -- It was Christmas night when Sincere Smith, 2, found his father’s loaded gun on the living room table of their Conway, S.C., mobile home. It took just a second for Smith’s tiny hands to find the trigger and pull. A single bullet ripped into his upper right chest and out his back.

His father, Rondell Smith, said he had turned away to call Sincere’s mother, who had left to visit a friend. His back was turned to the toddler, he said, for just that moment.

Sincere was still conscious when his father scooped him up and rushed him to the hospital, just a few minutes away.

Eleven hours earlier, Sincere Smith had woken up to Christmas -- the first that he was old enough to appreciate. His father remembered their last morning well -– his son ripping through wrapping paper, squealing with delight with each new gift -- his first bike, a bright toy barn.

.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html

[ufhomerj31]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html

we should ban stupidity, never leave a loaded gun any where.

[HudsonGator]

we should ban stupidity....

If only we could.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

(James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).

[HudsonGator]

(James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).


And I'm sure 100% of them would also tell you that they were innocent of all charges...

[Lawdog88]

If only we could.


Well, since we can't ban stupidity, let's ban everything else !

[HudsonGator]

Perhaps we should revisit eugenics.

[Lawdog88]

Perhaps we should revisit eugenics.


And your suggestions on thinning the gene pool would be . . . . ?

[HudsonGator]

And your suggestions on thinning the gene pool would be . . . . ?

Figure out a way to remove idiots.

[Lawdog88]

Figure out a way to remove idiots.


I agree.

And I get to decide.

[HudsonGator]

I agree.

And I get to decide.

Got a chuckle out of me on that one.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Related

When a man tried to rob a Dunkin’ Donuts in Connecticut on Saturday night, an employee acted quickly and stopped him with the closest weapon available -- hot coffee.

The attempted robbery happened shortly after 11 p.m. at a Dunkin' Donuts in West Haven, when a man pulled up to the drive-through and asked the clerk for change for a $100 bill, according to Sgt. David Tammaro, of the West Haven Police Department.

When the clerk refused to make the change, the man said this was a robbery and tried to climb through the drive-through window, police said.

More from NBCConnecticut.com

That is when the clerk threw hot coffee in man’s face, police said.

The man fled the area in a newer model white Ford Explorer without stealing anything, according to a news release from police.

[wargunfan]

“Deputies say a 51-year-old man broke into the home where a 24-year-old man and his wife were sleeping. The owner called 911, then armed himself with a pistol while waiting for deputies to arrive.” So far so good. But the intruder, a new renter in the Chehalis, WA neighborhood, was determined. king5.com reports that, “At one point, the suspect charged down a hallway toward the homeowner, who fired a shot, hitting the suspect. The two men then became involved in struggle until the suspect was able to break free. The homeowner held the suspect at gunpoint until deputies arrived.” It was, of all people, a former cop who imparted the most wisdom about the incident: ”‘I think it proves the point that we need guns,’ he said. ‘I am always armed. Everybody involved in the scenario last night was part of our neighborhood watch program with the exception of the guy laying in Harborview with a bullet in him.’”

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/daniel-zimmerman/defensive-gun-use-of-the-day-neighborhood-watch-edition/

[Dreamliner]

In Los Angeles County police charge $159 to respond to a residential alarm call ... if indeed they decide to come.

Just saying.

[ThePlayer]

Pop Quiz: Who kills more innocent people ?

(A) private sector

(B) public sector

(C) mother nature

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You are on your own

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AQ1WBb81BE&feature=player_embedded

The police are not in the business of personal protection; they investigate crimes, and cities try to establish enough of a police presence to indirectly deter some amount of crime, but that’s all they can do. Nor should we desire to live in an environment where the police are everywhere all at once, for reasons of cost, privacy, and liberty. The police have a tough enough job as it is.

It’s not up to the police to defend us from attack — it’s up to us to do so for ourselves, which is one big reason why we have a Second Amendment right to arm ourselves.

From HotAir

[MichiGator2002]

Perhaps we should revisit eugenics.

Yeah, let's revisit the single most manifestly evil display of human hubris in history. To tell it to go back to the hell that belched it forth.

[HudsonGator]

...individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.


http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6450427#ixzz2MmXwF6ue
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099)

Poor conclusion since most of those statistics involve gang violence.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

A black man's view

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZDjp66NdiNY

[helix139]

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

There are a lot of variables that can play into that. Was the person carry the gun doing so legally? Did they have any sort of training? Were they carrying openly or concealed?

IMO, there are a lot of contributory factors to these kinds of situations and you can't simply boil them down to "carrying a gun makes you more likely to get shot." Best thing to do is to let people make their own decision on whether or not they feel both qualified and willing to carry in the public domain.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

There are a lot of variables that can play into that. Was the person carry the gun doing so legally? Did they have any sort of training? Were they carrying openly or concealed?

IMO, there are a lot of contributory factors to these kinds of situations and you can't simply boil them down to "carrying a gun makes you more likely to get shot." Best thing to do is to let people make their own decision on whether or not they feel both qualified and willing to carry in the public domain.

Exactly the point. When liberals trot this "statistic" out, others have parsed it and discovered that most of the violence involves gangs.

[wygator]

And your suggestions on thinning the gene pool would be . . . . ?

I think we should eliminate all of those silly warning labels on products.

A little bit of natural selection can go a long way.

[HudsonGator]

Poor conclusion since most of those statistics involve gang violence.

I realize these numbers are difficult for you gun-lovers, as it destroys the central theme of your argument, i.e. guns are necessary for defending hearth and home, but I must ask you, what science supports your statement?

You should keep in mind that the reason I posted this study was because you seem to have a habit of posting anecdotal stories in an obvious attempt to prove the point that guns are good.

Put another way, in response to our anecdotal evidence, I gave you a study of actual statistics which refutes the point you are trying to make.

[helix139]

I realize these numbers are difficult for you gun-lovers, as it destroys the central theme of your argument, i.e. guns are necessary for defending hearth and home, but I must ask you, what science supports your statement?

You should keep in mind that the reason I posted this study was because you seem to have a habit of posting anecdotal stories in an obvious attempt to prove the point that guns are good.

Put another way, in response to our anecdotal evidence, I gave you a study of actual statistics which refutes the point you are trying to make.

The fact that the study was in inner city Philadelphia. Are you trying to say the same statistics apply in, say, Texas or in central Florida? The demographics and cultural background are completely different, making the study inapplicable for anywhere other than inner-city Philadelphia or similar locations.

Inner city Philadelphia was also one of those areas that had several precincts with no votes for Romney. I think it is only fair then, to say that in those precints in inner city Philadelphia, voting for Obama makes you more likely to be a victim of assault than voting for Romney.

[HudsonGator]

Other than a conclusory statement about Philadelphia, how about providing a study, any study, that refutes this study's findings.

[helix139]

Other than a conclusory statement about Philadelphia, how about providing a study, any study, that refutes this study's findings.

You won't find them simply because there haven't been that many studies on carrying firearms due to ethical concerns, and the conclusions in the studies that do exist are often simply wrong, as in the study you linked. One very simple explanation is that those who are more likely to be victims of gun violence are more likely to carry a gun because they are at greater risk of violence.

Think of this way: inhaler use is more common among asthmatics, so those who use inhalers are at higher risk of asthma. Nonsensical, right? The same applies here. One might also note that of those in their experimental group, 53% had criminal records. Not exactly representative of the population, is it? It also would suggest that those people are more likely to be involved in gun violence regardless of if they are carrying.

Edit: But here's one for you anyways, albeit from an FSU criminologist ;)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

[geauxgator1]

You won't find them simply because there haven't been that many studies on carrying firearms due to ethical concerns, and the conclusions in the studies that do exist are often simply wrong, as in the study you linked. One very simple explanation is that those who are more likely to be victims of gun violence are more likely to carry a gun because they are at greater risk of violence.

Think of this way: inhaler use is more common among asthmatics, so those who use inhalers are at higher risk of asthma. Nonsensical, right? The same applies here. One might also note that of those in their experimental group, 53% had criminal records. Not exactly representative of the population, is it? It also would suggest that those people are more likely to be involved in gun violence regardless of if they are carrying.

Edit: But here's one for you anyways, albeit from an FSU criminologist ;)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Nice....too bad it all makes sense!

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

...but I must ask you, what science supports your statement?



You mean other than the facts?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

From the ‘truth is stranger than fiction’ files comes this story out of Independence, Oregon, where a stolen shotgun apparently pulled the trigger of a stolen AR-15 and killed the man who had just stolen both firearms.


The accused shotgun did not have an enlarged tactical charging handle like this one. If it had, the Dearly Departed would probably have lived to steal another day. From koinlocal6.com . . .

…Detectives say that 19 year-old Genaro Hernandez Mendoza of West Salem was going to visit family who lived on the farm when he entered and burglarized a home on Independence Highway.

Deputies say Mendoza took several items and fled from the home on foot. He returned to the farm and placed the stolen items behind a barn. They say he then stole a pickup truck belonging to the farm and returned to the home he burglarized stealing more items and a shotgun and AR-15 rifle.

Det. Williams with the Polk County Sheriff’s Department tells KOIN 6 News that they believe a piece of the shotgun was caught in the trigger area of the AR-15. While crossing the field the truck hit a bump causing the weapon to fire once striking and killing Mendoza.

Farm workers found the truck and Mendoza Sunday morning with the engine still running and the truck in drive.

Polk County Sheriff Bob Wolfe added that they would be reviewing the evidence to determine if anyone assisted Mendoza with the Burglary.

The report doesn’t specify that the shotgun’s bolt handle caught the AR’s trigger, but it’s the only part of a shotgun that conveniently fits inside the trigger guard. (A shotgun muzzle might fit, but not while the AR is upright.) This is possibly the first time that an unattended firearm used another firearm to kill a human being.

No word on whether Mr. Mendoza’s next of kin will sue the shotgun for wrongful death, its owners for negligence, or both.

-----TTAG

[HudsonGator]

You won't find them simply because there haven't been that many studies on carrying firearms due to ethical concerns, and the conclusions in the studies that do exist are often simply wrong, as in the study you linked. One very simple explanation is that those who are more likely to be victims of gun violence are more likely to carry a gun because they are at greater risk of violence.

Think of this way: inhaler use is more common among asthmatics, so those who use inhalers are at higher risk of asthma. Nonsensical, right? The same applies here. One might also note that of those in their experimental group, 53% had criminal records. Not exactly representative of the population, is it? It also would suggest that those people are more likely to be involved in gun violence regardless of if they are carrying.

Edit: But here's one for you anyways, albeit from an FSU criminologist ;)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

I guess I have seen it all. You people will use something from the Noles to win an argument....

In all seriousness, this study, and the one I referenced both demonstrate that it is not established that having a gun necessarily makes one safer, and in fact, there is some evidence to suggest it makes one less safe.

[HudsonGator]

You mean other than the facts?

Learn what the word "anecdotal" means and then rejoin the discussion.

[helix139]

I guess I have seen it all. You people will use something from the Noles to win an argument....

In all seriousness, this study, and the one I referenced both demonstrate that it is not established that having a gun necessarily makes one safer, and in fact, there is some evidence to suggest it makes one less safe.

Uhh, no there isn't, but you only see what you wish to see. The only "evidence" is a correlation among a sample consisting of over 50% criminals within an inner city where those people who had guns were subject to gun violence at a higher rate than those who didn't. There is no causal relationship demonstrated as you keep trying to suggest, and as I pointed out, the other side of the explanation is that people who are already more prone to gun violence tend to own guns at a higher rate than those who aren't prone to gun violence.

[Minister_of_Information]

I guess I have seen it all. You people will use something from the Noles to win an argument....

In all seriousness, this study, and the one I referenced both demonstrate that it is not established that having a gun necessarily makes one safer, and in fact, there is some evidence to suggest it makes one less safe.

Including criminals armed with guns tends to skew the statistics. Obviously armed confrontations between criminals are much more likely to lead to mortality than most any other circumstance in civilian life. So lifestyle risks, which correlate more strongly with firearms mortality and gun violence in general than any other factor including firearms possession, have to be filtered out.

[jdrgator]

Including criminals armed with guns tends to skew the statistics. Lifestyle risks, which correlate more strongly with firearms mortality than any other factor including firearms possession, have to be filtered out.

Good points, MoI. Routine Activities (theory) certainly plays a significant role.

[HudsonGator]

Uhh, no there isn't, but you only see what you wish to see. The only "evidence" is a correlation among a sample consisting of over 50% criminals within an inner city where those people who had guns were subject to gun violence at a higher rate than those who didn't. There is no causal relationship demonstrated as you keep trying to suggest, and as I pointed out, the other side of the explanation is that people who are already more prone to gun violence tend to own guns at a higher rate than those who aren't prone to gun violence.


OK, if you don't like that study, here's another one:

Abstract:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.


http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-30

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I guess I have seen it all. You people will use something from the Noles to win an argument....

In all seriousness, this study, and the one I referenced both demonstrate that it is not established that having a gun necessarily makes one safer, and in fact, there is some evidence to suggest it makes one less safe.

Again, you are suing a study that focuses on one location and has a lot of gang activity. All the other studies show that defensive uses of gun measure in the millions each year.

[HudsonGator]

Again, you are suing (sic) a study that focuses on one location and has a lot of gang activity. All the other studies show that defensive uses of gun measure in the millions each year.

Please direct my attention to all those "other studies."

As you can see immediately above your post, I have provided yet another study which supports the conclusion of the first study provided.

I also reject the notion that the first study should be ignored because of "gang activity." What evidence is there of that?

Regardless, I have now provided two separate studies that stand for the proposition that guns do not make one safer, on the contrary, they make one less safe.