I can't imagine a scenario where multiple people with bad intentions break into someone's house. Just never, ever happens.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Air Force failed to report Devin Kelley's convictions to the FBI
- Thread starter Medic007
- Start date
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Shit, national news, huh? From.... March. Out of curiosity, have their been any other gun-related incidents in Oklahoma since then? Let's look at the number of deaths vs. thwarted home invasions.
Which showed that your 1 in 300,000,000 was incorrect. You even upped it to 400 in 350,000,000 afterwards. My disagreement was with your 1 figure. That is all.
As for your probability argument, sy did a good job of addressing that with his post. Not much more needs to be added.
And if you think it is "hysteria" that people want to stop the deaths of the innocent children you see in the picture sy shared, I really don't know what else to say to you.
Last edited:
I was speaking about the legal, historical, and common sense perspectives I spoke of originally.
It is on the "pray for the people who got shot praying" thread.
You asked how someone is penalized by not having a semi auto weapon. I provided the obvious answer. It isn't my fault you don't like the answer.
Why do you own semi auto weapons?
Just a simple Google search of multiple intruders. The last one was included because I like the old lady's spirit. There's a bunch of links to intruders being shot multiple times. Hard to defend yourself with a bolt action in these situations. I'm surprised an avid gun owner like you isn't aware of this reality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-woman-opening-fire/?utm_term=.41723006b513
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/las-vegas-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder/66712529
http://local12.com/news/local/columbia-twp-homeowner-shoots-two-intruders
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/22/brentwood-two-found-shot-dead-inside-house/
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeowner-Shoots-Intruders-Police-174633151.html
http://wqad.com/2017/08/02/thats-just-texas-60-year-old-woman-shoots-kills-home-intruder/
What did the simple google search disclose about innocent people that died fro guns during the same time frame?
Why would we willingly comprise any of our civil liberties to the Federal Government when this very incident proves the Fed. Government is bloated and incompetent (at best)?
What does that have to do with a right to defend yourself in your own home? Is your point that because innocent people get shot and killed, I shouldn't have the tools to defend myself? I hope that isn't your point because that's next level stupid.
I'm going to disagree here. Unless the new gun law is going to be written in such as way as to not be abstracted to all 350 million citizens, then there was nothing wrong with Wyoming's posts. You can't argue for additional gun control which is abstractly applied to everyone then be critical about the defense not being sympathetic to an individual impacted.
As for gun control compromise, what would you want? What compromise would you find acceptable enough? Because, I'd note that us 2nd Amendment nut jobs believe we've allowed our rights to be constrained. We supported the Brady bill. We give schools and institutions the right to be gun-free zones (and thus shooting galleries). We submit to background checks when we purchase weapons. Short of giving up our guns completely, which given there are over 300 million guns in the US isn't even a practical idea, what compromise to you would be enough?
The number of people that defend their homes vs. the number of people that are killed seems plainly relevant. Cost benefit analysis.
How many of those home-owners used semi-automatics? Don't put a narrative in my mouth that all guns should be forbidden. I'm not the radical -- the radical position is saying that we shouldn't have any "new laws."
Uh, no. Not even slightly. You can't breed a cow and a lizard. That's exactly what you're trying to accomplish. The benefit of a semi auto in home defense has nothing to do with the cost of someone using a semi auto to commit a crime.
I'd assume many of them. Semi auto handguns are very common. You sure you own guns?
Comparing the societal benefits of something vs. the costs is a pretty common analysis when considering public policy and law.
Could you elaborate on the cow and lizard metaphor?
I wouldn’t blame it on the gun or availability of guns. Ever. Just like I wouldn’t blame a DUI fatal crash on alcohol availability or the number of vehicles on the road. I would hold the person who committed the act responsible. This really isn’t hard to figure out.
I can see that thinking with your vagina is how you operate. You go, girl.
Meanwhile, 0.000001212.
Well, it was one person out of 330,000,000 who committed this act, right? Then you had to define “mass shooting” as involving 4 or more after the fact. My number would have been higher, but whatever.
0.000001212. Not much different from 0.00000001212, is it?
I haven’t dodged anything, dude. Just haven’t got there yet. It’s been a busy day. I’ll try to answer you first in the future to keep from hurting your feelings. Now sit tight for a moment while I scroll back up and reread so I can get caught up.
Sure. A cow is a mammal. A lizard is a reptile. They cannot be bred.
I legally own semi autos for my own defense. No crime committed and zero threat to anyone unless they enter my residence uninvited.
Some gang banger uses a semi auto to shoot another gang banger in Atlanta for retaliation. Crime committed by a criminal and the criminal is a threat to society in general. The criminal should be punished for his actions as prescribed by the law.
I'm the cow. The gang banger is the lizard. We have zero connection.
Now, if we are on the subject of restriction of constitutionally protected rights based on societal benefit vs cost, since there have been Islamic terror attacks that have killed innocent people, can we restrict the religion of Islam? Like require a background check before you can attend a mosque? Make it illegal to discuss jihad? Can we limit the Quran by removing all of the parts that refer to jihad and only allow copies of the Quran that have been modified? Can we make them register their copies of the Quran? Can we require imams to obtain a federal license to preach? Require them to keep records of every word they speak and then audit them periodically to ensure their compliance with the law? What about Christians? Can we do this to Christians? Atheists? Religion can be dangerous and a threat to public safety. Does the benefit of individual religious liberty outweigh the costs of religion-inspired violence by religious radicals?
What’s the difference between “statistically insignificant” and “statistically significant”?
If my daughter was killed in a car crash, I wouldn’t advocate elimination of cars, period. Same for guns. Period.
@syskatine
I apologize for my tone in this reply. Long day and I should not have taken it out on you.
That's okay. I'm used to it. I've taken more hits that Melania's head board.
Lol. I was wondering what was going on with your stream of posts. I have Sys on ignore so his posts don't show for me, so it read like 5 straight posts of you arguing with yourself.
I don't know the answer to these questions. I don't own a gun, but I understand why many individuals feel a need to own one.
The only thing that bothers me about this topic is that so many people are so strongly against the first step, which is to open a dialogue. As soon as someone says, "we need to talk about gun control", that individual is told to shut their mouth and stop trampling on everyone's constitutional rights. Maybe there is some kind of realistic compromise out there. Something that reduces the likelihood of mass shootings but does not prevent people from feeling that they are in a safe position and can defend themselves and their families. Maybe there isn't a realistic compromise. But, if we don't get serious and start trying to find common ground, nothing is ever going to change (which would make the NRA very happy).
What the hell is this?
Who the hell is this?
Why does anybody give a dump about your "2 cents?" Ever heard the phrase "know your audience?" This board is for discussion, not preaching.
You don't have any ideas but want to see something done for the sake of doing something. And since you aren't a gun owner, you don't particularly care if that something infringes on the rights of those who are? Is that basically correct?
I'm not calling you out Been. Just noting that we are 60 something posts into this thread, and I haven't actually seen anyone post a viable change in legislation that they would recommend, other than my own post stating that I agree with the bump-stock ban that was being discussed by Congress.
Right?
"I'm sorry Sir, but Brooke and Emily getting shot in the head at church isn't statistically significant enough to change any policies. We might add that should you have any more children, you may want to make sure they have semi-automatic weapons on them if they leave the house. When they jump rope at the park you can outfit them with little holsters that will hold a .32 nicely."
Also, just know that Cbradsmith will lay into you for a while. Let him swing away, he does it to any new posters that deviate from conservative messaging. Welcome to the board.
I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to make a recommendation. I don't know enough about the laws that are in place, or enough about guns.
It just bugs me that this keeps happening and there are 3 basic responses.
1). Something needs to be done.
2). There is nothing we can do.
3). Now is not the time to talk about it.
Nothing changes. Rinse. Repeat.
It doesn't matter what ideas you, me, syskatine, or anyone else on this board has. I would just like to see a dialogue opened by actual leaders of this country. If the end result is "There is nothing we can do", then at least I would feel that the topic wasn't ignored/swept under the rug.
You said you agree with the bump stock ban. That seems like a step in the right direction to me.
A .32? I guess that would be expected from a lefty who owns guns. You don't even want to offend the criminal you shoot.
Some wise dude once said this about the .32...
"It might be OK to have such a miniscule pistol, but dont load it; if you load it, you might be tempted to shoot it, and if you shoot it you might actually hit someone, and if you hit someone they might actually notice, and if they notice they might hurt you."
End bump stocks
Require all sales be it private or gun show to go through a background check.
Just find a way to lower the overall number of guns in the country. 4.4% of world population owns 42% of worlds guns. That and not diversity or mental health is the sole reason we have the number of shootings and mass shootings.
One simple variable and thats it. Change the variable and the shootings can only go down.
Mental health is also not the reason/solution:
"If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.
A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. And Mr. Lankford, in an email, said countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings."
I can live with the first 2 items if you can make it where private sellers can use the system easily.
Beyond that, 'find a way to lower the overall number of guns' isn't actionable. Nor is anything on mental health, without violating any tenant of individual privacy. Unless of course you want to sign up to a system where every medical record, employment review, or any other type of evaluation of you is stored online in a government database for instant mental analysis at any time.
Guns I've sold have been through an FFL dealer. A lot of dealers will facilitate the sale for a small fee, like $25. The buyer gets a background check and the seller gets appropriate paperwork.
Seems like you could just go to a gun shop and pay a fee for them to do the check.
I said that mental health is NOT a factor in the mass shootings and such. So nothing really needs to be done there.
Better paying gun buybacks, make the punishment for illegally owned guns very severe. The gun numbers that I am talking about are mainly the inner city handguns. Maybe do something on the ammo end of things is we can't get the guns from people who should not have them.
Why? What is the issue with limiting the number of guns an individual can own at one time? Or, requiring an individual to be licensed to own more than a particular number of guns. We already have a system in place where an individual has to jump through certain hoops to be able to concealed carry. What would be wrong with implementing a similar system if you want to legally own more than 10 guns, and a more rigorous system to own more than 25?
I would suggest following the oath that was used to lower smoking in the country.
Taxing and making it a health issue.
Taxing and making it a health issue.
I'm trying to be practical. A .44 is a little harder for a 5 y.o. to hide in a little holster. Maybe you're right, though. There's no reason she couldn't just let the barrel kind of ride down the back of her leg.
I've been told that the old timers in my family used to shoot deer in the head with a .22, so I guess it just depends on your marksmanship.
An old HiPo told me once that my 9 mm was a "sub-caliber pusillanimous" something or other... I can't remember the rest of it, but it obviously wasn't the first time he said it.
If I choose to sell any gun I don't care whether it's through a FFL dealer or not. Nor will I get a license to sell it. The only thing which matters is who has the most $$.
As I've heard my 92 y/o mother say all my life, "the moment they go to gun registration will be the moment I cease being a law abiding citizen".
As I've heard my 92 y/o mother say all my life, "the moment they go to gun registration will be the moment I cease being a law abiding citizen".
Now you're applying that brain. You don't have to go toddler freak show with the Dirty Harry, but at least a compact .40 or preferably a .45. The child should have the weapon for protection, not a pillow fight.
Sure, you can kill a deer with a .22. You can kill all sorts of things with a .22. But the shot and bullet trajectory once inside the target have to be fairly precise at anything over 10-15 feet for any reliability of incapacitation. I've seen a guy shot in the nose point blank with a .22 who died instantly. I've also seen a guy take a .22 to the skull from across the street and receive nothing but a scalp wound.
Self defense demands reliability of incapacitation. Watch a YouTube video of .22 rounds in ballistic gel vs .45 rounds in ballistics gel. The .45 has a lot of cavitation and thus a much greater reliability of delivering an incapacitating shot. If want to risk losing that 49 point buck by shooting at him with a .22, feel free. I don't hunt so I'm not worthy of giving hunting advice.
Thank you. You actually provided the framework of a rule that can be debated. What you said is different than what I stated wasn't actionable. Your statement is actionable.
I could live with your recommendation with a couple of caveats. It would need to be high enough to account for multi-person families owning multiple guns each, say 20+ per household. The database would need to be explicitly restricted from FOIA requests.
