So you're committed to killing anyone who breaks into your home? I don't get it. Assume they have a gun, fine. Does that mean you start shooting the second you have a clear line of fire? I'm not worried about the fate of the intruder. Personally I don't want to kill anyone and I doubly don't want to kill anyone in front of my son.Originally Posted by Beantown
Shooting in self defense must always be done to stop the threat. Period. Anything else qualifies as murder in my opinion.
I am assuming that your self defence covers everyone in the household.
For example I am woken up in the middle of the night to breaking glass. I am grabbing my gun. As I leave my room I see a man entering one of my daughters rooms. He is a goner. There is no way in hell I am letting him go in there. None. Now if I see him in the kitchen instead and he is crawling back out of the house. Well, I call 911 and give them info on the guy as I watch him but I let him go.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...r-gun-control/
Reporting that Biden is looking at two things (amoung others) .
1. Magazine limits - I see this as something that will pass and yet not make a damn bit of difference. OK you can not buy a 30 drum mag. Oh the shooter had 5 loaded magazines that hold 15 rounds each? Well dang it...
2. "Universal" Background checks- includes gun shows and private transacations. Man the police are going to have a field day with private sellers. I see so many people breaking this that it will be very hard to effectively enforce.
I think I agree with you here, in the most basic way of "wouldn't it be nicer to solve the problem without shooting if possible" sense.
however, the woman was terrified. . . . and a lot of people are just going to be terrified, particularly women and kids, when someone breaks into their homes.
I think the burden of having "good sense" or "good manners" should be left on the perp who trespasses, breaks and enters, or initiates the offense. . . . as long as he is advancing. When he starts to flee the threat just isn't the same. . .
but this woman was cornered, and the terror was understandable. It would have been better if she had listened and stopped firing, but I'm not sure I want people like her becoming the defendants in court. I'd say when you enter unlawfully into others' property and present a threat to their safety, it's like you have pulled a gun on somebody, and if they shoot back it's all self defense. Boy I hate courts sometimes when they get hung up on trying to make people offenders for their inability to keep a cool head when feeling their lives are on the line.
Except that it would've made a difference in Tucson; Loughner wasn't apprehended until he had to stop to reload. Loughner obtained his weapon(s) legally; if there had been a ban on high-capacity magazines, lives would have likely been saved.
Some people (including that Republican hack Lindsey Graham) say that they can reload just as fast with a smaller clip. Cool. Then no problem with smaller clips.
Lanza allegedly "jungle-rigged" his gun for maximum effect. At Columbine, they killed in multiple ways, but high-capacity was part of it. In other words, there's a demand by mass killers for high-capacity mags. For hunting or sport or even defending your property, the benefit of a high-capacity clip is negligible.
Probably right, but that doesn't mean you don't close the loophole. At least it will help to monitor the gun shows and help appropriate investigation of backgrounds in the future.2. "Universal" Background checks- includes gun shows and private transacations. Man the police are going to have a field day with private sellers. I see so many people breaking this that it will be very hard to effectively enforce.
Last edited by InGameStrategy; 01-11-2013 at 02:52 AM.
Someone asked if a center can still be a difference-maker in today's NBA, and Shaq said, "No. Not shooting jumpers."
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...nant-bigs-done
Um, there's actually plenty of data to support that it does work.
Such as the fact that there have been more mass murders since the assault weapons ban (albeit very weak) was lifted. There were a (short-term) record number of people killed in mass murders in 2012 (>150).
Case studies include assault weapons bans in the UK and Australia in 2006 that vastly reduced the frequency of (mass) murders.
See extensive peer-reviewed studies/meta-analyses by Harvard School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins school of Public Health, which are more credible than your citationless claim.
Address people who are mentally sick? Great! You ready to pay more taxes? Do you support an individual mandate on insurance? Excellent. Thanks for joining the cause.I think we need to help address people who are mentally sick rather than start taking people's guns away.
As for taking people's guns away, that's a fearmongering talking point by the NRA and other gun-huggers. At most, there will be universal background checks and/or ban on purchases future assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Nobody's taking anybody's guns away--unless someone brings their illegal weapons out in public.
You think?I think people who have guns need to take extra special care of them especially if they feel they could fall into the wrong hands.
How did that work out for Lanza and his mom and 20+ of the local schoolchildren?
There was no reason for the Lanza family to have an assault weapon.
Increased investment in mental health might have averted the problem.
Restrictions on assault-like weapons would've saved at least some lives.
Instead, now nearly 30 people are dead.
Yep. Glad you support reasonable regulations on monitoring ammo sales.Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Colorado theatre shooter was buying ammo in bulk online?
Someone asked if a center can still be a difference-maker in today's NBA, and Shaq said, "No. Not shooting jumpers."
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...nant-bigs-done
Ingame if you restrict the size of ammo clips they will simply change the way they prepare. It has been widely acknowledged that it takes mere seconds to change a clip. I still maintain that it wont make much of a difference at all.
Oh yeah. I'm completely in favor of giving the victim tons of leeway. I would never advocate prosecuting the woman. To be perfectly clear, my concern is for her and her children. People talk a big game about shooting intruders. The one's who have actually done it are traumatized by it. I'm advocating for people to spare themselves the trauma of killing an intruder. I have basically zero concern for the fate of the intruder.
Do we know, are they going to confiscate the millions of "high cap" magazines already out there? Will the ones already out there be able to be sold, traded or passed down as part of an estate?
I think that is an inescapable aspect of life, universal in biology.
They take longer to reload, though, right?
A little, if you have a speed loader and practice you can reload pretty fast.
You do realize that window of opportunity during the reload cuts both ways, right? If I'm trying to defend myself the attacker can use my reload time. So this ammo capacity restriction will maybe play a small role in mass shootings (again, responsible for fewer deaths than lightening) and may play a small role in people's ability to defend themselves as well.
But let's also look at the ultimate reason, according to the supreme court, that we have a right to arms. To defend against a tyrannical government. This mag capacity limitation has the biggest impact on the ability of the people to defend themselves against tyranny.
One Brow, do you feel like this will have an actual affect on violent gun crime? Do you think it will deter anyone from going on a shooting rampage or make shooting rampages less tragic?
I personally don't think a single life will be saved. But hey, if we can't adequately justify our freedoms then they should be taken away.
1. That's still half the bullets of five magazines with 30 guns each. However, I agree that the quicker a magazine can be changed, the less effective this will be.
2. Agreed.
Do you have to reload a speed loader? I genuinely have no idea how they work.
For example, let's say there was a ban on civilian purchase of weapons with magazines (so no current guns get taken away). Instead, civilians would have to buy revolvers, rifles that get loaded one bullet at time, etc.
1) Do you think that would significantly impact the ability of a householder to defend themselves against an intruder?
2) Do you think that would significantly impact the ability of a mass shooter to kill a large number of people?
As far as universal background checks, I say it's super tough without national firearms registration.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote