Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumCan those who recognize that firearms may be needed for home defense be legitimately called gun nuts
A 1/1/2013 Google News search for "home invasion" shows that home invasions have taken place and are taking place in this country.
Some examples from a 1/1/2013 Google News search prior to posting:
Three people charged with assault, home invasion in Taney County ...
http://articles.kspr.com/2012-12-31/home-invasion_36084957
Man Pistol Whipped During Home Invasion In San Francisco's ...
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/12/31/man-pistol-whipped-during-home-invasion-in-san-franciscos-mission-district/
Two shot, one arrested in Galva home invasion
http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/two-shot-one-arrested-in-galva-home-invasion/article_9eab089a-53a4-11e2-9067-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true
Jewelry Store Robbery Began with Bethlehem Home Invasion
http://bethlehem.patch.com/articles/jewelry-store-robbery-began-with-bethlehem-home-invasion
Arrest made in south Fort Myers home invasion, stabbing
http://www.news-press.com/article/20121231/CRIME/121231025/Arrest-made-south-Fort-Myers-home-invasion-stabbing
2 men accused in Prescott home invasion
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/2-men-accused-in-Prescott-home-invasion-4158320.php
Help sought in solving home invasion, robbery, murder
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2012-12-31/help-sought-solving-home-invasion-robbery-murder.html
Top 10 Stories of 2012: Brutal Home Invasion Attack Leaves Bedford ...
http://bedford-nh.patch.com/articles/top-10-stories-of-2012-brutal-home-invasion-attack-leaves-bedford-residents-on-edge
Home invasion suspect steals wedding rings from couple
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2012-12-31/Home-invasion-suspect-steals-wedding-rings-from-couple
Police: Men Arrested After Home Invasion
http://northbrook.patch.com/articles/police-men-arrested-after-home-invasion
Some communities are even reducting police protection for its law-abiding home owners and other citizens.
See, e.g., Fifth-Most Crime Ridden City in America Dismisses a Fourth of its Police Force. 911 Still in Service
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297556
An honest discussion would include a consideration of these issues. Those who wish to squelch an honest discussion may want to call these reports or any references to them "right-wing talking points" or "NRA talking points." To squelch discussions, they may also wish to also call liberals and progressives who recognize a need for firearms to be owned for home defense "gun nuts." What legitimate purpose do they have for doing so?
Edited to add:
In the Heller opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held, among other things,
"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
doc03
(39,075 posts)home intruders all at one time unless you are Dracula or have the Frankenstein monster in your dungeon.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)There are packs of feral dogs in my hunting areas. I am usually over a mile from my car. I am by myself. My rifle is only a single shot. I think a 9mm holding 15 rounds is just about right; I don't carry a spare magazine. Where is my logic flawed?
doc03
(39,075 posts)or a bag of rocks than a 9mm handgun. That's a first you have feral dogs, you guys have an excuse for everything. What did the pioneers do back in the 1800's? You can have a AR-15 and a 150 round magazine just get as permit like you do with a full auto matic.
Permits cost money. Why should someone have to pay $200/year to own a rifle that is not a true "assault rifle?" That creates a system where only rich people can afford them.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)I'm not buying into whatever other reason you've heard. This one is mine and it's real. The fact that you discard my reason out of hand just goes to show you're not interested in anyone's reason real or imagined.
For my specific case you can suggest whatever you want. I'll carry what I think is best, thanks.
I'm not carrying a larger rifle or an extra gun into the deep woods. The 9mm gives me capacity and low weight, and +P rounds should do fine perfromance-wise. A 9mm is an excellent general-purpose handgun and serves my needs. I don't feel like I have to go out and buy several pistols when my 9mm covers my needs.
doc03
(39,075 posts)a gun grabber I have been around guns and hunted all my life and never saw one situation where I needed a 30 round magazine or a semi-auto. Those types of guns are not even legal to hunt with where I live. Any kind of gun legislation you guys dismiss it out of hand, it can never work, it's too expensive, I may be attacked by 31 zombies and I can't survive with only 30 rounds. Carry a whole wagon load of loaded magazines then.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)...but that makes me an insecure male who's has a complex about my penis in several poster's eyes.
So I can't win.
I don't think semi-autos need to be held to the standard that automatic weapons do; but I wouldn't care if the background check for a first time purchaser was at the level of the one for a concealed carry permit-- with perhaps a renewal period.
I don't abide the registration because of the recent incident where the NY paper indiscriminately published an electronic database with names and addresses of gun owners. It happened in Virginia too after Virginia Tech and the wound up publishing the names/addresses of women that had violent spouses with restraining orders. I felt less strongly about registration before these incidents but I've been vetted by the state; I don't need to be hassled by some yutz down the street with some thing about guns.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Back in the 1800's they used whatever technology was widely available I'd assume. Great thing about the 2000's is we have a wife variety of fine self defense firearms and a great selection of bullets to choose from.
Why carry a bag of ineffective rocks when you can carry a 21oz pistol and two or three 15 round mags that weigh less. You'll also need some way to propel the rocks at speeds that will deter or stop an attack.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)Even though I've managed to not feel a need for one I do support those who feel they do need them. Its called freedom of choice.
I'm free to make the choice I made and they are free to make the choices they make.
I say we leave the gun owners alone and go on about our day, each day
I see most gun owners as responsible and that's all I ask.
I also realize there are those who aren't responsible about anything
spin
(17,493 posts)I have been amazed by all the hatred directed toward honest, responsible citizens that own firearms.
democrat in Tallahassee
(3,531 posts)Ever heard of a home security system. You can some fairly cheaply now and they don't go off accidentally and kill people.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)going to be helpful in the event of a home invasion?
spin
(17,493 posts)That's what happened to my daughter in our Tampa home back in the 80s.
She had came home late at night after work. Our burglar alarm went off. Occasionally this happened on a windy night would cause the sliding glass door in the kitchen to shake and trip the sensor. My daughter simply reset the alarm and went to bed.
About 45 minutes later the alarm went off again. My daughter woke up and thought this was strange as it was a calm night. She grabbed a large caliber revolver and entered the kitchen with the intention of reseting the door.
She found a man who was forcing the sliding glass door open and was halfway in. She pointed the revolver at him and he ran. No shots were fired.
Apparently the first time the guy tripped the alarm he waited to make sure that it wasn't hooked up to the local police. (The police department had been getting so many false alarms that they had started charging a fee for responding to one. Consequently I had not activated that feature.)
There was also a 60 pound black Lab in the house at the time. Unfortunately she was a very gentle dog who had a fear of loud noises so she had went into hiding.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)You must also know that public services can also be seriously affected in natural disasters like these?
Phone doesn't work
Electricity doesn't work
What do you have then?
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Have doors and windows hardened enough to slow down the intruders and give you time to make it to your safe hiding place.
Hopefully they'll give up because your place is too hard to get into.
If they do break in, make sure they can't find you. If they can't find you they can't hurt you.
If somebody breaks into my home I never, ever, under any circumstances want to come face to face with them. I want to be gone, hidden, out of sight, safely locked into my well hidden, well hardened hidey-hole.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)yours is a best case scenario if you are only thinking about yourself. If you have a family...children, then trying to do what you prescribe will be fairly difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)People with families and children need different strategies. I would still think that stronger doors and windows to keep intruders out longer is the first step. But the very last thing I would want would be a wild-west shootout with the bad guys when there are women and children in the room.
And what happens if the people breaking down the door are cops doing a drug raid at the wrong house? It has happened. You want a shootout with the cops? Or do you want to be out of sight and safe while they figure out their mistake and things calm down?
Nope, I'll chose run and hide every time.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)my step one is not giving anyone the impression you have anything worth stealing. I don't know where you are from, but where I'm from, the women would be shooting back too. Usually better than either of us.
We need to end the war on drugs and have stricter "no knock" warrant laws.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)I live in rural Oregon surrounded by horse ranches and hay fields. My house certainly doesn't give the impression there's anything worth stealing inside. And, in fact, there is nothing worth stealing inside. The guy next door (1/4 mile away) has a target range set up behind his barn where he does target shooting with his assorted pistol. I suspect burglars would find easier pickin's in the city.
LibertarianMI
(5 posts)You prefer to be a victim? I prefer to create distance between my attacker and my family. If that fails, I will shoot him twice in the chest. I will not risk my children's safety with a strict run and hide policy. Their safety is not worth risking to keep their attacker alive.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Well hidden means the bad guys can't find you.
It doesn't mean duck under the dining room table and hope they don't notice you. It means having a secure and well concealed hiding place where you can retreat in complete safety.
I want to be safe.
I don't want to have to spend the rest of my life with PTSD because I had to take another person's life.
I will avoid confrontation with the bad guys by making sure the bad guys never find me.
And since it's only me I need to worry about, I can act quickly and decisively and just disappear. And if my home is not set up to make that possible then my home is not secure.
I think my way is infinitely better for me than to "shoot him twice in the chest." That's just too "Rambo" for me. That's not who I am, and I wouldn't want to live with the psychological consequences. (I know, you think you're a tough guy and there would be no consequences for you if you "shoot him twice in the chest". All I can say to that daydream is 
)
blue burro
(10 posts)You sound an awful lot like a Republican there...
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)A place to hide. Maybe it's inside that old dishwasher in the kitchen that hasn't worked for years and could be hollowed out and refitted to be locked from the inside. Not roomy, but you don't have to spend very long there.
Maybe it's something in the garage. A spot up in the rafters that can't be seen from below. Dummy tank that looks like an old water heater, an old chest freezer outfitted with air inlets and lockable from the inside.
Maybe it's in the attic. Maybe it's a false wall in a closet. A 2-foot by 3-foot floor space would be enough.
It's not a matter of being rich, it's a matter of being creative. Replace a bathtub with a stall shower and cut a hole in the wall from the other side to gain access to a 3x3 foot dead space that nobody would even know was there.
But again, I live alone. It's only me. That makes my situation different. That makes my way workable for me. Who knows what would work for other people in other situations.
spin
(17,493 posts)Have a cell phone in your hidey-hole so you can contact the police if your land line is cut.
Have a shotgun in your hiding place. If they break the door down and make entry, you can be waiting behind cover (such as a bed) with the shotgun pointed at the door. You will have time to determine that they have no right to be in your home before you pull the trigger.
Of course the advice on the shotgun assumes:
1) You can legally own a firearm.
2) You have safety training for firearms.
3) Are responsible enough to realize that firearms should be stored safely to prevent access by children and theft by your average criminal.
4) Do not abuse alcohol or drugs, are not suffering from depression or any significant mental disorder that could lead to violence.
5) Do not live in a volatile relationship with a significant other.
6) Could actually shoot another person if absolutely necessary. (Many people could never do this and that might be a positive virtue.)
Guns are not for everybody.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Having a shotgun in the hiding place as a last resort would not be a bad idea.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Well I guess it's a kind of passive protection, but if that's the plan I'd run and get out of harms way. Hiding only works if you have a second plan of action if you're found.
I'll agree harden your windows and doors, this should give you enough time to call 911, move your family and, get your AR or Shotgun and prepare to defend your family and home.
The biggest problem for anyone is getting the family out of harms way before any plan of action can be taken.
Good news is this doesn't happen to many of us on any given day so everyone here has a chance to prepare. My latest addition is a DVR system. I need some kind of security system (besides two doggie alarms) I just haven't done much research on the subject yet.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)I'm by myself so it's only me I have to hide.
As a previous poster suggested, having a shotgun in my hiding place would probably be a smart last resort safety measure. I would not object to that. But I'd rather design my hiding place so that the bad guys would never find it. Fake wall, trap door in the floor of a closet, etc.And the hiding place probably should have an emergency exit to the outside too.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)If you're found in your hidey hole... you are now unarmed and cornered.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)A shotgun stashed in the hiding place would make a sensible last resort.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)people should decide for themselves what they need.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)But that ain't gonna happen!
Loudly
(2,436 posts)So if they were both the motive for the crime and at the same incapable of being used against the criminal, how do they promote home security?
And in other stories the perpetrator brought their own gun. They were emboldened to commit the crime because of the gun in their possession.
So how does the proliferation of guns in the hands of the public promote home security when their abundance makes them more available to criminals?
Such "honest discussion" suffers from a clearly pro-gun bias.
Weed out the stories in which the presence of a gun carries the guilt of causation, and let's see what really remains.
NONE of which, by the way, would be a Second Amendment argument, no matter how good it feels.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I would think their casing skills would be better and hit the place when no one was home.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)And now stolen guns are used in the next home invasion.
I award grudging praise when someone shows me a story involving guns in which society is improved or peace is preserved or true justice served.
Those stories are scarce, I'm told, because there's nothing to report. People just quietly taking care of business.
Is that true? Because it's difficult to believe.
And again, how does it relate to the Second Amendment? The greatest dishonesty in the discussion is the justification adorning that.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)including DoJ. Even the Joyce shills like Hemenway puts it north of 60K per year. Others put it in the millions. I don't think there is a really accurate way of counting them. I'm guessing the good guys kept their guns in these cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
The worst home invasion I know of in Florida involved an entire family being murdered with baseball bats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltona_massacre
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)For some people, such as the Justices of the Supreme Court and others who have read the Heller opinion, it should be apparent.
In the Heller opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held, among other things,
"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
If you cannot understand how this is related to the Second Amendment, that's up to you.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)The 2nd amendment specifies for a "well Regulated Militia" it doesn't say anything about hunting or personal self defense or traditional lawful purposes. There have been many Supreme Court decisions which have been wrong, we can start with the Dred Scott decision, need I say anymore!
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/march-6-1857-supreme-court-issues-dred-scott-decision/
Loudly
(2,436 posts)It took 58 years for Brown v. Board of Ed. to correct the wrong.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Heller expands civil liberties, Plessey limited civil rights. No, I'm not comparing Heller to Brown either. Brown overturned Plessy expanding civil rights, while Heller overturned nothing.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)To the extent it furthers the proliferation of guns and ammunition, its effect is to deprive shooting victims of ALL their genuine rights.
Straw Man
(6,943 posts)Same old zombie memes.
Still confusing the criminal code with the Bill of Rights, I see.
You're like the guy who gets bounced from the bar and changes his jacket to sneak back in. Shameless and pathetic.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)be the first to answer this question which has ben bugging me for a long time..
The 2nd reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If the authors meant:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Why didn't they write it that way?
sarisataka
(22,665 posts)it is a good thing that newspapers don't publish lists of people who have guns
spin
(17,493 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Publishing names and addresses doesn't commit theft. Thieves commit theft.
spin
(17,493 posts)doesn't cause people who wish to contact you to call you.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)In the 1st story; The victims had guns but they did no good in helping them, and the guns were then stolen, which means now criminals have guns for their next crime.
In the 2nd story; the victim was accosted outside his home, so unless he was carrying, his gun for self defense at home would have been of no use to him.
#3; There is no information regarding the facts of what happened, so we can not make any judgement as to whether or not a gun would have helped them or been available to be stolen from them.
#4; There is a possibility that having a gun may have helped this victim but for all we know it may have gotten him killed instead of robbed.
#5; This victim was "attacked while sleeping in her bed" I'm afraid having a gun here would have given the attacker more killing power.
#6; So much for having 5 firearms for self defense, this victim had the weapons but they did him no good and ended up in the hands of criminals, as a matter of fact, the weapons were the reason the criminals targeted this victim.
#7; It is possible that this victim may have been helped by having a gun, or maybe it would have been stolen along with his money.
#8; This story gives no details of how the crime occurred and therefore we can not draw any conclusions.
#9; This victim may have benefited from having a gun, but just as easily could have turned it into a gun fight where they may have been hurt, as it was they were not injured.
#10; This story seems vague and unclear as to what happened, it seems that all involved were criminals, I don't think any of them should have been allowed to have a gun.
Summary: In most of these cases either a gun would not have helped or there were already guns and they didn't help the victims, in one case the victim seems to have been targeted because of his guns. In a couple cases it seems that if the victim had a gun it could possibly have helped them, however it could also have caused them more danger. People are not gun nuts solely because they feel the need for a gun for self defense, but they are gun-nuts when the falsely identify a need for a gun. The fact of the matter is, more guns directly leads to more gun deaths and injuries, not to mention more stolen guns getting into the hands of criminals.
Let's not pervert the issue with foolish terms like gun-nuts, let's stick to the facts that guns do kill people even when they are bought for good intent.
Next time please read the stories you post, it helps to be informed rather than just pretending to be.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"A 1/1/2013 Google News search for "home invasion" shows that home invasions have taken place and are taking place in this country."
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)so you agree printing names and addresses where guns are kept makes people more vulnerable to burglary?
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339513
Home invader dead after jumping from window to avoid gunfire
SNIP
The man was part of a group who broke into a Lancashire Circle apartment Wednesday morning. Inside the home were a couple and two children. Reports are unclear on who shot first, but gunfire was reported between the residents and intruders.
SNIP
One home invader was wounded and arrested, the other died from his jump.
Home invader with knife stopped by homeowner with gun
Nederland police say a homeowner with a gun was able to stop an intruder who was armed with a knife late Saturday evening.
More at link
Man shot by Tacoma homeowner charged with burglary after hospital stay
Pierce County prosecutors on Monday charged a 20-year-old man who was shot in the face after allegedly breaking into a Tacoma home six months ago with residential burglary.
Christopher Rhodes pleaded not guilty to the charge during his arraignment. Authorities issued a warrant for him Dec. 26 after he was released from the hospital.
Rhodes had been out of prison less than six months before he allegedly tried to burglarize a home at South 14th and Madison streets June 19. The homeowner who shot Rhodes was not charged because prosecutors said he was defending his home.
“The defendant was caught in the act and lawfully shot,” Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said. “Now, he’s going to be held accountable for the burglary. This case is another reminder that breaking into people’s homes can land you in the hospital or prison, if you aren’t killed.”
More at link
Burglar Shot and Killed in Arundel County
On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 at approximately 0628 hours, various members of the Anne Arundel County Police Department responded to a business called “Arundel County Coin Shop” located at 7418 Baltimore Annapolis Boulevard, in Glen Burnie.
When officers arrived they were met by an employee of the business. The employee advised officers that prior to their arrival an unknown intruder had broken into the business while the employee was there. There was an altercation inside the business and as a result the intruder was shot. The intruder ran out of the business and collapsed. Paramedics were summonsed to the scene, at which time, the intruder was pronounced deceased. The intruder has been identified as Byron Keith Phillip, 30 of Chester, Maryland.
No charges against homeowner who fatally shot burglar
No charges have been filed against a homeowner who shot and killed a burglar who allegedly broke into his northwest Harris County condo early Thursday, investigators said.
And here is a website that is devoted to keeping track of such incidents: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-example/
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Otherwise please feel free to throw any other crime stories not involving home invasion in to desperately prove some point or other.
There was a bank robbery in Illinois last week, can we include that too?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Yet he wasn't actually sanctioned to be a neighborhood watchman at all, he was nothing more than a vigilante full of rage toward people with dark skin. He stalked an innocent minor who was minding his own business walking back to his fathers house and when Trayvon stood his ground to defend himself he was murdered by a person with a history of violence who owned a gun legally. But the worst part was the local police force which has a history of racial bias trying to brush it under the rug.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is no evidence he "was full of rage toward people with dark skin" unless he was self loathing.
Was there a conviction of violence? Obviously not. If so, he would not have legally owned the gun.
Plus, there is the issue of Corey playing hide and seek with exculpatory evidence. That tells me that her case has more problems than simple over charging.
edit to add link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Even Senator Feinstein (D-CA) has chosen to be a firearm owner for self-defense. What are the odds that she and all the other DC politicians who are exploiting the school shootings own firearms in their homes?
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)However there are also many times when it is not.
I'm not against people being allowed to have a gun for self defense, I am against people being allowed to have assault weapons, high capacity magazines, high velocity rounds, military style body armor etc.
I responded to the original posts which I think are a good representation of what happens when people have guns, in many cases they are not able to use them because of the circumstances of the attack and the weapons are stolen, in some cases they are able to defend themselves thanks to having a gun handy. There are many other outcomes as well, such as children discharging guns by accident, and people becoming the target of break-ins because they own guns, the scenarios are many and varied and all of those outcomes need to be taken into account. Statistics show that as more people have guns, more gun deaths happen.
It is irresponsible to ignore the threats caused by gun ownership especially when assault weapons and associated paraphernalia are being proliferated, some reasonable limits and regulations can protect both, a person's right to defend himself and his home, as well as the safety of society as a whole.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your brilliant response sums up the mountain of irrational idiocy that goes into gun nuttery. Why mince words? These people are not rational with respect to guns. They are "gun nuts".
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)The debate is not advanced at all by use of anger induced vagueness, it's much more effective to clearly identify why guns are a danger and why they need to be regulated. It is you who is mincing words when you use a term which is ambiguous with no criteria for definition, if you need to vent your anger find a way which is actually effective toward the very important goal of getting agreement on gun regulation. If your contribution does not help achieve the goal then you are part of the problem.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)much more so than cars. Will you still claim that guns are unregulated when a new round of stricter regulations are proposed?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
There is a similar graph for violent crime in general and for gun related homicides. All have been on gradual decline for many years. Also during those same years of decline, every single day there have been more guns in private ownership than the day before. How can this be possible if, "more guns directly leads to more gun deaths and injuries"?
ileus
(15,396 posts)
only hidden criminals and criminals have firearms....
mike_c
(37,046 posts)Isn't close air support what you REALLY want to defend against home invasion?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)We put alarm systems in our home to avoid confrontations; we put burglar alarm signs on the property to warn others; we keep our car key fobs by the nightstand so we can set off the horn when we hear something unusual; we keep a dog as a deterrent; some might keep a firearm handy in case the other deterrents fail to deter, so that the unmistakeable sound of an operating slide loading a shell sends intruders scampering. No one wants confrontation, but weakness and apathy never deters.
The police have no legal obligation to protect average individuals, only elites.
spin
(17,493 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... those who refuse to be part of the solution by a priori taking any forms of control off the table. I have particular disdain for those who support personal possession of assault weapons.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)other insults which may indicate to them the futility of trying to engage in any bona fide dialog.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I read that an Illinois bill will be introduced on tomorrow that defines a lever action as an "assault weapon" along with various "fudd guns". Pistols used in the Olympics and the ISSF are assault weapons in California. In DiFi's bill, a .30 carbine is an "assault weapon"
Control has always been on the table. Have always been there. The "cars are more regulated" canard shows ignorance of dishonest.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Any semi automatic weapon.
and
Any weapon or weapon component that enables a weapon to fire more than 5 rounds without reloading.
Is that simple enough? Or you could settle for the less clear assault weapon ban, and let washington decide what the details are. An example of one of those would be the bushmaster rifle used in Connecticut.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the rifle was not an "assault weapon" and you just screwed the Olympic team. I prefer the technical/military definition, not the Josh Sugarmann definition.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Of course, they were extras in a John Wayne movie and the M92 Winchester wasn't manufactured until after the fighting in the West was over. Both John Wayne and Chuck Connors seem to think that the lever-action provided good theatre.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If you want to have the inane argument called "you can't define an assault weapon" I'll just counter with a much simpler regulation covering all semi-auto weapons and all weapons and weapon components that enable more than 5 shots without reloading.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Apparently, when DiFi's Bill is introduced, the Bill will also define a M-1 Garand as an assault weapon.
Her actions make for good political theatre. Grocho Marx's may have described it best:
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to engage in their actual sport. That is entirely manageable.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the UK has to send their Olympic pistol team to France.
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)forces wish i.e. http://www.tectussecurity.com/ from drones to fully automatic military weaponry. Remember these are just very rich lucky people and not leaders or elected officials, and they have no more right to defend their property in our country, than do you or the poorest of Americans.
When the 99% are disarmed, and more so than the elite, we officially become serfs. It is fundamental to our democracy that the masses be able to defend and protect themselves and their family and property. Laws that provide distinct differences in the right of self protection are an enormous step against our freedoms and equality and this formally creates a lower caste for the masses. Since the elite control the message, most non critical thinkers are sucked into their propaganda of only emotion.
*Elite: An elite in political and sociological theory, is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite
blue burro
(10 posts)will be plowing for those who do not.
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)I see too much brainwashing that promotes only the views and propaganda of the 1% and wealthy elite who too often subsidize the opportunities of only their own while decimating opportunities for average Americans. It needs exposed. All too often it is muzzled.
Firearm and gun control is something the elites typically promote as being needed but only because it promotes the rights of the elite and not the masses.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)including private security. I'd be in favor of reducing the armament capabilities of civilian police forces as well. The whole swat shit is a nightmare. Also, just to completely derail the conversation, we need to end the stupid war on some drugs at the same time.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that will play well in Chicago and LA.
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)will have all the drones and private security forces and fully automatic machine guns (not just semi auto 22s) firearms they wish, and we the huddled schmucks will have whatever the political elite and the billionaires that own them all (on both sides) deem appropriate to appease the sheep.
We have an official caste system of have mores with more arms, while the have nots will have nothing. When it all matures and congeals into special well protected upper crust elites, the have nothings will have nothing, but an apology from the overly emotional but non critical thinking anti-gun nuts that put the 99% in the have nothing hole.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.
Alcohol prohibition lasted 13 years from 1920 to 1933. It was an obvious failure and not supported by the general public. Did the prohibitionists ever admit that they were wrong? Did they ever apologize?
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) lasted 10 years from 1994 to 2004. Except for helping to get Republicans elected to replace Democrats that voted for the AWB, the AWB was also a failure. It, too, was not supported by the general public. Did the "assault weapons" prohibitionists ever admit that they were wrong? Did they ever apologize?
I suggest that Feinstein and Bloomberg and other millionaires not only are in favor of laws that do not apply to them and will not apply to them, they have schmucks that will support irrational anti-gun laws because of the influence of the MSM. The schmucks, even while not always right, are always certain.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)They will use the PEN to take your Sword, then use that very same pen to steal what is left of America. As "CE" points out so accurately. They came for the First Amendment and we could do nothing about it, because they already got rid of the 2nd.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-01-21/news/0501220068_1_bodyguard-carrying-filmmaker-michael-moore
"Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is set to introduce legislation that would gut the second amendment, said in 1995 that she carried a concealed gun in order to protect herself against terrorists."
Now she has Gov't Protection with Fully Automatic Weapons. No need to carry.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...is that you live in a country full of gun nuts.
The rest of the civilised world manages perfectly well.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Austria and Germany also have sensible gun laws. In fact, in Germany, a resident alien can even apply for a Waffenbesitzkarte gun owner's certificate.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...the MISUSE of guns.
And I'll lay London to a housbrick that they don't have laws setting out under what circumstances it is PERMISSIBLE to shoot another human being.
SO let me correct my previous post.
WE in the CIVILISED world manage perfectly well.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If someone is unlawfully attacked or directly threatened with an attack, the attacked person or anyone else is entitled to ward off the attack in a manner appropriate to the circumstances.
Article 16: Excusable self-defense
If the defender exceeds the limits of self-defense under Article 15, the court shall mitigate his punishment.
If the defender exceeds the limits of self-defense due to excusable excitement or distress at the attack, he shall not be culpable.
Unless a state has a specific SYG, DTR, or CD law, it is common law for that place. For example, Wyoming has a castle doctrine, but is specific to inside the home or dwelling. Outside of that, it is common law. I don't know what Wyoming's precedent is in that area, and finding out first hand isn't on my list of things to do.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)And those SYG, DTR, & CD laws, where about the only way it's possible to run afoul of them is to videotape the encounter to prove you're in compliance, are EXACTLY what I was talking about.
Otherwise it's the shooters word vs. that of a dead body.
And I do believe, you utterly failed to address the simple fact that the civilised nations outside the USA, don't pile up bullet riddled bodies like cordwood.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and you underestimate the value of forensic science.
Castle Doctrine is English common law dating back to middle ages. SYG is US common law on the federal level and some states dating back to the Progressive era.
Each country has its problems, and we don't stack "riddled bodies like cordwood". Since most of our murders are criminals killing other criminals, I don't see the relevance unless you are saying defending yourself is a bad thing. If you just using the OCED countries we are third in murder. All countries, we are something like 120. All of the ones that top us have very strict gun laws. They also have many of the same social ills we have too, like wealth inequality, public corruption, violent organized crime.
Out of the OCED countries
Belgium is first in robberies
Australia is first in rapes
UK is first in violent assaults
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I cannot imagine needing anything more than a shotgun and/or revolver for this purpose. The gun nuts are those who are armed to the teeth with AR-15s, semi-automatic handguns and a paranoid disposition.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and a seven round 1911? Or a modern semi auto? The whole all things semi auto are bad is starting to look like an inane band wagon.
Straw Man
(6,943 posts)and a seven round 1911?
Um... The revolver won't jam?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Before US cops switched to semi autos, they were very common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedloader#Revolver_speedloaders
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)(2) There are enough moon clips in the real world, and enough people who can easily make them if there was ever a shortage, to make speed-loaders irrelevant.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)anymore than there is one one for the 1911. "Public safety", like patriotism, is often the last refuge of scoundrels.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Ask the Sandy Hook parents if there is a "legitimate public safety arguement to ban them". I'll defer to their wisdom. BTW, confusing Public Safety with Patriotism is the last refuge of obfuscators.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)lead to poor public policy. Neither was used at Sandy Hook.
According to CT law, since it was registered and legal there, the rifle was not an "assault weapon". nitpicky maybe, but simply pointing out the absurdity of buzz words.
Not a Samuel Johnson fan are you?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If he'd had his way the US would still be under the crown. 