Sometimes 10 rounds isn't enough.

[GrieferKiller]

Stephen quipped in his essay that if you can't kill an intruder (or your wife in the act of raiding the fridge) with 10 rounds, you need to go back to the shooting range.

In response to that assertion, I'd like to point out the recent incident in Georgia where a woman successfully defended herself and her two nine year old children from a crowbar wielding intruder. She fired all six rounds from her .38 revolver, striking the man in the face and neck with five rounds, after retreating into a crawl space with her kids to avoid him. Yet, the intruder was able to flee the home and drive off. Five .38 caliber rounds did not instantly incapacitate him. Luckily, he did not choose to continue to press the attack, instead opting to flee.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/01/10/georgia-woman-who-shot-intruder-hailed-as-model-gun-owner/

What if there had been more than one intruder? What if she had hit with fewer of her six rounds, or perhaps missed with all of them? A Glock 19 with 15 rounds in the magazine, and one in the chamber, would have given her 10 more rounds, and much better capability of defending herself and her children. Also, a couple of spare magazines kept handy would provide far quicker reloads, than even speedloaders can offer with revolvers.

Many people do not have the time, or can afford, to frequent a shooting range to keep their pistol marksmanship sharp. High capacity magazines give a less skilled shooter a greater chance of disabling an intruder. I agree that anyone who assumes the awesome responsibility of keeping a loaded firearm in their homes, or legally carried concealed on their person, should train enough with the weapon to be as proficient as possible. But, even hundreds of hours of shooting at static paper targets cannot ensure deadly accuracy with a handgun, when the targets are violently animated, charging at you with a knife, or firing back at you. When confronted with a life threatening situation, the adrenaline flows preparing us for for "fight or flight". Heart rates soar, and blood flow is restricted from the extremeties to mitigate blood loss when injured. There is a loss of fine motor control, which makes hitting anything with a pistol even more difficult. All of which makes choosing a pump action 12 gauge shotgun, or an AR-15 with 30 round magazines a better choice for home defense, than a revolver. A long gun is much more accurate and controllable, because it has a much longer sight radius (the distance between the front and rear sight), a longer barrel that stabilizes the projectile/s for a longer time, and is steadied against the shoulder. It also justifies high capacity magazines.

One could maximize one's firepower, within the proposed 10 round limitiation, by choosing the largest caliber handguns available, such as .45 ACP or 10mm, as opposed to 9mm or .40 S&W. However, the larger the caliber, the greater the recoil, and thus increased challenge to accurate shot placement.

The medical examiner on the scene at Sandy Hook reported that the bodies he examined had been shot with the Bushmaster 5.56mm rifle 3 to 11 times. The most widely available magazine for that rifle hold 30 rounds (though there are some higher capacity magazines and drums that hold 40, 60, or even 100 rounds). So, even with the 30 round capacity, Adam Lanza swapped out magazines several times to kill 26 people. Would the carnage have been lessened if he only had 10 round magazines? Would he have been mauled by an organized pile on of rallying 6 year olds, if he'd had to swap magazines more frequently? Or, would his mother have opted for purchasing a higher caliber rifle, like 7.62mm or even larger, if the advantage of higher capacity wasn't legally available? If so called "assault" rifles were banned altogether (like they were in the state of CO at the time), and Adam Lanza had instead carried the 12 gauge shotgun into the school that day (that was in the trunk of his car), would the death toll have been any less? 12 gauge 00 Buck contains nine .33 caliber pellets in a single shell, which is capable of killing a man the size of Hulk Hogan, and any six year old. The magazine tube on my Mossberg "Persuader" 12 gauge can hold 7 shells, plus one chambered. One can outfit the shotgun with shell carriers on the receiver, and a sling with loops that hold shells, and wear bandoleers over your shoulder that hold at least 50 shells. It's not that difficult to slip shells into the shotgun, loading as you're firing.

Competition pistol shooters can slap fresh magazines into their semi-auto pistols in the blink of an eye. Limiting magazines to 10 rounds won't make a dent in the death tolls of these rampage shooters. They'll just bring more magazines, and more pistols, and probably opt for higher calibers. A single well placed .45 ACP is plenty lethal.

[Sepia and Dust]

Five .38 caliber rounds did not instantly incapacitate him. Luckily, he did not choose to continue to press the attack, instead opting to flee.


Choose? Opting?

The guy was on the floor begging the woman to stop shooting him. The only reason she emptied the revolver is because her husband was on the phone with her, repeatedly telling her to "shoot him again".

One shot would have sufficed. Dude wanted to get the hell out of there.

[Sepia and Dust]

Also, my previous post (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/27870-Change-Brady-to-a-charity-or-give-it-away-for-free?p=566911#post566911) in another thread.

[kingricefan]

I'd like to ask you and the wonderful *ahem* Senator Lindsay Graham this question: What do you intend to say to the grieving parents of murdered children #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc. when you wouldn't agree to pass a bill limiting the rounds in a magazine to 10 rounds? What exactly will your words be? :dunno:

[GNTLGNT]

A single well placed .45 ACP is plenty lethal.

...which is why my Colt 1911, is my weapon of choice....

[PatInTheHat]

Many people do not have the time, or can afford, to frequent a shooting range to keep their pistol marksmanship sharp. High capacity magazines give a less skilled shooter a greater chance of disabling an intruder.

I'm sure you would agree that cops not only have the time, they're required to find it, and, it's paid for.
They don't keep their jobs if they ain't proficient in the use of their firearms, supposed to highly skilled in the art of shootin' bad guys azzzes off in fact, but police have proven time and time and time and time again and again and again, that they often, waayyyyy too often, can't hit the side of a f'n barn...want me to find you the statistic regarding how many bullets per kill it takes in war, with very highly trained, extremely motivated, professionally equipt and prepared in each & every way, soldiers?
Just another freakin' tool for the N.itwit R.ifle A.ss'ociation, oh, and I really think you should seek some help, and by the sound of it, perhaps some kleenex.

[Sepia and Dust]

Many people do not have the time, or can afford, to frequent a shooting range to keep their pistol marksmanship sharp. High capacity magazines give a less skilled shooter a greater chance of disabling an intruder.

I think I'd rather that someone just get murdered in a home invasion than have them spraying bullets all through the neighborhood. One dead is better than... well, how many bullets are in that thing, anyway?

[atomicinchworm]

I have to agree with Sepia.

I don't personally believe that you should be shooting anything if you don't reasonably believe that you will hit the target. On the whole, a single shot or a "Hey, jerk, I have a gun!" would be enough to stop a robber. People typically do not want to die, and that lizard part of your brain takes over. In this instance, if there was another intruder, I think his buddy would have gotten the hell out of there after hearing his friend screaming in agony after being shot.

Spraying 15 or 30 bullets into a neighborhood is reckless and stupid. People die from ricochets, or get shot by them, frequently enough. The home defender would become a defendant in a murder trial. Last I checked, collateral damage is not an acceptable argument in court.

[Lily Sawyer]

Many people do not have the time, or can afford, to frequent a shooting range to keep their pistol marksmanship sharp.

But they have the money to buy firearms and the bullets. Priorities, priorities.

An unskilled marksman with a gun in hand is an irresponsible idiot, no matter how well-intentioned they are. This is why I'm in favor of mandatory gun marksmanship and safety training classes. No certificate of completion; no license for said gun. No license and you're considered a felon. Jail. Fines. Revocation of all other gun licenses for mandatory two years or more. End of discussion.

[Sepia and Dust]

This is why I'm in favor of mandatory gun marksmanship and safety training classes. No certificate of completion; no license for said gun. No license and you're considered a felon. Jail. Fines. Revocation of all other gun licenses for mandatory two years or more. End of discussion.

A felon? Really?

[Lily Sawyer]

A felon? Really?

Yep. Make the laws that tough regarding registration, licensing, and safety training. It's not a revocation of the Second Amendment. If people can go to jail for vehicular manslaughter (read: being irresponsible with a car; considered a felony), then people ought to go to jail for being irresponsible about firerarms - and the crime should be considered a felony.

[PatInTheHat]

But they have the money to buy firearms and the bullets. Priorities, priorities.

An unskilled marksman with a gun in hand is an irresponsible idiot, no matter how well-intentioned they are. This is why I'm in favor of mandatory gun marksmanship and safety training classes. No certificate of completion; no license for said gun. No license and you're considered a felon. Jail. Fines. Revocation of all other gun licenses for mandatory two years or more. End of discussion.
Hey now wait just one cotton pickin' little minute there Lilybean, that's sounds an awful lot like regulatin', and regulatin' pretty daggum darn well dagummit, so I'm here to tell ya that we red white and blue suede shoes will be havin' have none of that kinda silly nonsen:oo:..what's that:glare:?..it says what:eyebrow:??..you sure:umm:???..um, never mind, butt only because I obviously don't have one available that's currently functioning at anything close to the level one might expect to have if one was actually interested in doin' any real thinkin' *SN:laugh:RT!*..I kill myself sometimes!

[Sepia and Dust]

Yep. Make the laws that tough regarding registration, licensing, and safety training. It's not a revocation of the Second Amendment. If people can go to jail for vehicular manslaughter (read: being irresponsible with a car; considered a felony), then people ought to go to jail for being irresponsible about firerarms - and the crime should be considered a felony.

The difference is in the damage caused. Vehicular manslaughter actually involves killing someone. Owning a gun you haven't taken a test for causes harm to no one. You don't get a felony rap for having an uninspected car or for driving without a license.

Draconian laws never serve the common good, and they rarely solve a problem without creating many new ones.

[hossenpepper]

As some of you know, I grew up first on a rural Native American reservation and then a farm about 10 miles from the closest town, in Oklahoma. Guns area part of life there. When we lived on our farm, if someone was driving down our road and we didn't expect someone, my mother would brandish her 12 gauge and pop off a warning shot into the sky. Funny, but true. Not one single person ever continued on to our house. They stopped, turned around, and left. 100%.

My point is that the THREAT of a gun is almost always going to be enough for most intruders. This is also why, as atomicinchworm pointed out, a large dog is probably a better deterrent, short of popping off a warning shot. But think about this: intruders in the U.S. know we are an armed populace, yet they still break into homes, etc. Why is this? Could it perhaps be that most are simply burgling for profit, not looking to cause physical harm? I am sure I could find some links to stats that specify the numbers breakout, but I seem to remember that the vast majority of these types of intruders are not rapists, free-wheeling, drug-crazed maniacs or serial killers (but when did a gun stop Jason or Freddie Kruger?). So then we are talking about a tiny percentage of cases where it is going to result in the homeowner actually shooting the intruder. I would also bet that a sizable chunk of that tiny group of shot intruders are also ones that, as S&D pointed out, the guy got shot breaking in and just wanted the hell out of there.

So in my personal experience, high capacity mags aren't needed for home defense. Neither do I see any proof from others' stories justifying these mags.

As far as hunting goes, I have never, ever, in hundreds of times of going, seen someone use or need one these weapon types at issue, to hunt.

[jay1799]

I think I'd rather that someone just get murdered in a home invasion than have them spraying bullets all through the neighborhood. One dead is better than... well, how many bullets are in that thing, anyway?

Wow. Playing God much?

This is not an either or discussion, like some trolley problem.

The flippant way which you decide that someone ought to be murdered instead of being able to defend themselves is truly shocking.

[jay1799]

Yep. Make the laws that tough regarding registration, licensing, and safety training. It's not a revocation of the Second Amendment. If people can go to jail for vehicular manslaughter (read: being irresponsible with a car; considered a felony), then people ought to go to jail for being irresponsible about firerarms - and the crime should be considered a felony.

You are not considered a felon if you drive your vehicle without a registration or even a license!!

At most, as long as you dont kill someone....you will have to pay a fine.

Wow!

[Sepia and Dust]

Wow. Playing God much?

This is not an either or discussion, like some trolley problem.

The flippant way which you decide that someone ought to be murdered instead of being able to defend themselves is truly shocking.

As I mentioned before, you're not worth talking to. Less so, now that you've reduced yourself to abject trollery by completely mis-stating both the text and the intent of my comment.

[PatInTheHat]

Wow. Playing God much?

This is not an either or discussion, like some trolley problem.

The flippant way which you decide that someone ought to be murdered instead of being able to defend themselves is truly shocking.

Really?
Says the one what doesn't flippin' mind blood drippin' off his center mass market, but then what exactly does a lug wrench know:eyebrow:?

[Sepia and Dust]

The flippant way which you decide that someone ought to be murdered instead of being able to defend themselves is truly shocking.

Further, some of the opinions expressed by you and by the OP of this thread reinforce my belief that there is simply no way in hell that firearms (other than revolvers and vermin-hunting rifles like .22s) should have the capacity to be loaded with more than 6 rounds. The "maximizing firepower" comments and equating home defense with firing up to thirty shots in a residential area were dead giveaways that you cannot be trusted with firearms.


I will be writing to these people today, to express just such a conviction:

The Honorable Roy Blunt
United States Senate
260 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2503
DC Phone: 202-224-5721
DC Fax: 202-224-8149

The Honorable Claire McCaskill
United States Senate
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2504
DC Phone: 202-224-6154
DC Fax: 202-228-6326

The Honorable Sam Graves
United States House of Representatives
1415 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2506
DC Phone: 202-225-7041
DC Fax: 202-225-8221

[jay1799]

I will be writing to these people today, to express just such a conviction:

The Honorable Roy Blunt


The Honorable Claire McCaskill


The Honorable Sam Graves

Go right ahead and write your congressmen. You dont think I havent already done that with mine....several times? My local state rep I have talked to in person. Heck, I have written and\or called representatives that are not even mine. I guess I will add yours to my list. Thanks for the info so I dont have to search for it. :)

[Sepia and Dust]

Thanks for the info so I dont have to search for it. :)

Happy to waste your time.

[GNTLGNT]

Happy to waste your time.

...it's easy when they make themselves a "target" eh?....:biggrin2:

[Patricia A]

Charlotte Bacon 6 years old wanted to be a veterinarian when she grew up. She loved animals, the color pink and a good argument.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa219/plcarmstrong/10399_436183899770365_17658087_n.jpg

Charlotte would have probably thought that 10 rounds were plenty. Some of her friends and classmates were shot 11 times, none of them were shot less than 3 times.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/bradylaw

[Lily Sawyer]

Proposed felony crimes...and these exclude the obvious individuals, like law enforcement types:

-carrying a firearm into a public establishment where alcohol is served
-brandishing a firearm in public establishments or on public property (and properly registered weapons are not excused)
-holding gun owner responsible for accidental child deaths by firearm, even if it is a child who fires the weapon (to be called felony negligence)
-failure to provide mandatory gun operation and safety class completion certificate while continuing to own a firearm

You've got to start somewhere. They're Draconian to some and perfectly reasonable to others.

[Sepia and Dust]

Proposed felony crimes...and these exclude the obvious individuals, like law enforcement types:

-carrying a firearm into a public establishment where alcohol is served
-brandishing a firearm in public establishments or on public property (and properly registered weapons are not excused)
-holding gun owner responsible for accidental child deaths by firearm, even if it is a child who fires the weapon (to be called felony negligence)
-failure to provide mandatory gun operation and safety class completion certificate while continuing to own a firearm

You've got to start somewhere. They're Draconian to some and perfectly reasonable to others.

Start what somewhere?

A couple of them are Draconian no matter how you look at it.

The first one, I can see. Not sure what you mean by "brandishing" in the second. The third has some merits, depending on the situation. The fourth is simply ridiculous.

What I don't see is how any of your proposed felonies would have prevented or even mitigated Sandy Hook, Columbine, or Virginia Tech.

[Patricia A]

If anything we do can stop one shooting spree it is worth every bit of inconvenience it may/will cause gun owners.
I had a handgun up until mid December, I took it apart and threw it away bit by bit. I have now no guns nor any gun parts. That's just me and my little red wagon, as they say.
In America we have the right to bear arms and our children have the right to life, liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.
We have to and will balance these rights.


http://i1051.photobucket.com/albums/s431/carolerae/cartoons/Ana-Marquez-Greene-6-300x196.jpg

Ana Marquez-Greene, 6 years old singing "Come, Thou Almighty King" with her brother Isaiah


http://youtu.be/5xh0R0d3wR0


Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/bradylaw

[hossenpepper]

Not sure what you mean by "brandishing" in the second.

I took it to mean holding the gun in hand, waving it around, etc.

I don't think felony level punishment should be given for the not completing a class thing, but maybe revocation of your CCL, etc., until it's done. That would be existing holders of CCL and then after a certain period, say every few years. Make it a classroom thing the first time you go and then maybe an online refresher after that. New CCL seekers should have to take the class before their license is issued. Maybe there is something like that now in some places, not sure. I don't have or need a CCL. Certainly though, to get one this is reasonable.

Also maybe having to obtain a license to buy and sell guns as an individual is not a bad idea. That way the background check is done (and could be more thorough) before you can even buy one in the first place. That certainly won't stop everyone and not sure it would have stopped any of these crimes at debate, but sometimes starting down a road is what springs forth better ideas.

[Sepia and Dust]

I think that we have enough laws already. We could probably use a few more regulations, but we have plenty of laws. One I'm especially fond of is Don't ****ing shoot people. Those who break that one tend not to be all that worried about becoming felons.

[Lily Sawyer]

Start what somewhere?

A couple of them are Draconian no matter how you look at it.

The first one, I can see. Not sure what you mean by "brandishing" in the second. The third has some merits, depending on the situation. The fourth is simply ridiculous.

What I don't see is how any of your proposed felonies would have prevented or even mitigated Sandy Hook, Columbine, or Virginia Tech.

-Starting a negotiation for stricter gun regulations somewhere. (I'm being charitable here because I'm for repealing the Second Amendment. No guns for private citizens. But that's a whole other thread and I won't lobby for it.)

Yes, they're Draconian but you have to start somewhere and recognize the wiggle room inherent in the negotiation. Hossie pointed that out very well. The law you quoted ("don't **cking shoot people") is already in place and is as ineffective as Trayvon Martin's choice of safe routes home the night he was killed by an asshat with a gun. None of my proposed felonies will mitigate mass shootings - no felony law ever will - but they'll sure make it harder for asshats to obtain and maintain guns.

[Sepia and Dust]

None of my proposed felonies will mitigate mass shootings - no felony law ever will - but they'll sure make it harder for asshats to obtain and maintain guns.

You're also making it harder for people who need guns to obtain and maintain. Which is also why the US will never repeal the Second Amendment.

Who needs guns, as in "who needs to use them in their day-to-day lives?" People who live in any area that's darker than orange:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/ruraled/images/map.gif (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/ruraled/exhibit_c.asp)

[Lily Sawyer]

You're also making it harder for people who need guns to obtain and maintain. Which is also why the US will never repeal the Second Amendment.

Who needs guns, as in "who needs to use them in their day-to-day lives?" People who live in any area that's darker than orange:

...and I still don't buy that the private citizens *need* guns in those areas. When crime is actively thwarted via citizen vigilance, law enforcement, and any areas of dispute (property, turf, rights), crime rates drop. When illegal drugs are removed and drug rings arrested, crime rates drop. When social issues are addressed and solved, crime rates drop. It's time for community organization and grassroots efforts to take back neighborhoods so that no one *needs* a gun, no one lives in fear in their own home, and kids don't die in their elementary schools.

[Sepia and Dust]

Feh. The legend wasn't included on the .gif. Anyway, dark green is very rural, red is metropolitan.

[Lily Sawyer]

I figured the red areas are urban. If (and that's only *if*) concerned parties in urban areas finally got off the can and organized their butts into preventing gang turfwars, drug trade, and burglaries, there wouldn't be an issue with *needing* a gun in those areas. But it takes the majority of communities from the grass up to motivate and stop it themselves. I believe that most people are good and that they can solve this on their own without a Congress full of fighting f*ckheads leveraging new laws on them.

So Americans have got to get with the program and stop b*tching about having gun rights taken away and how scary liberal Democrats are. If Gunners don't want more gun restrictions and feel the way you do, but don't have answers regarding background checks or mental health access for people who need it, then they need to take matters into their own hands and rid cities themselves of the problems that cause a need for guns in the first place. Go ask for deputizing from the local police force! Volunteer to patrol neighborhoods - ARMED, no less! - with blessings from law enforcement! Set examples to kids by enrolling in gun safety classes! I am sooooooooooooooooooo not standing in your way - I'm all for that!

But as far as I can tell, there are an awful lot of lazy-ass conservative Gunners out there who won't step up to the plate.
And that's why I started this whole Draconian negotiation, because it at least gets a conversation started where brainstorming occurs.

[Sepia and Dust]

...and I still don't buy that the private citizens *need* guns in those areas. When crime is actively thwarted via citizen vigilance, law enforcement, and any areas of dispute (property, turf, rights), crime rates drop. When illegal drugs are removed and drug rings arrested, crime rates drop. When social issues are addressed and solved, crime rates drop. It's time for community organization and grassroots efforts to take back neighborhoods so that no one *needs* a gun, no one lives in fear in their own home, and kids don't die in their elementary schools.

I'm talking about people who need to shoot gophers, bears, deer, hogs, bobcats, coyote, lynx, weasels, rabbits, feral dogs, mountain lions, alligators, and snakes. Farmers need to protect their crops, ranchers need to protect their livestock, and country folk need to protect their families, property, and pets against predation. It's the twenty-first century, yeah, but nature is still red in tooth and claw.

As for law enforcement out in those vast expanses of darker-than-orange, armed citizen vigilance is often the only way to be safe from violence--the cops simply can't get there in time to protect you.

[Sundrop]

Proposed felony crimes...and these exclude the obvious individuals, like law enforcement types:

-carrying a firearm into a public establishment where alcohol is served
-brandishing a firearm in public establishments or on public property (and properly registered weapons are not excused)
-holding gun owner responsible for accidental child deaths by firearm, even if it is a child who fires the weapon (to be called felony negligence)
-failure to provide mandatory gun operation and safety class completion certificate while continuing to own a firearm

You've got to start somewhere. They're Draconian to some and perfectly reasonable to others.

I can go for all but the the last one, Lily.

While I fully agree that proper licensing and safety training should be mandatory, I don't feel that failure to maintain such certificate should be a felony.
For instance, if a person happens to fail part of the test required to obtain CCL certificate, I feel they should be given an opprotunity to improve their knowledge and/or skills in order to obtain said certificate. I also feel that passing a gun safety class should be required before a person is allowed to purchase a new gun.
Maybe incorporate fines and extra schooling for laspes in maintaining up to date licenses.....
And what about folks who own only antique types of guns?

[GrieferKiller]

Choose? Opting?

The guy was on the floor begging the woman to stop shooting him. The only reason she emptied the revolver is because her husband was on the phone with her, repeatedly telling her to "shoot him again".

One shot would have sufficed. Dude wanted to get the hell out of there.

The woman did all she could to get away from the intruder first, retreating all the way into a crawl space. He followed one of her kids upstairs, with a crowbar in his hands. And then she did what she had to do. The primary concern of any mother in her place is to protect her children, and herself. She's not morally or legally obligated to spare the piece of trash that broke into her house. I would have drilled him the second he crossed the threshold.Y
You don't know that one shot would have permanently demotivated him, and you'd be stupid to put the lives of your family at risk, hoping for a change of heart from some creep that broke into your house. There have been reported cases where guys have been riddled with 9mm rounds, and kept fighting. If I'm going to go to the trouble and expense of purchasing an expensive weapon, and training to use it, and cleaning it, and making sure it's 100% functional at all times, I want it to be packed with all the bullets it can hold. I don't want to fail to stop an intruder because I didn't have enough rounds.
Especially if it's a smaller caliber like 9mm. I'm not knocking 9mm. It's the most popular pistol cartridge in the world, because it's relatively cheaper. Large enough to be effective, but small enough to pack a lot of rounds into a magazine without making the grip of the pistol too large for small and medium hands to grasp. It recoils softer than larger calibers like the .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10mm, which makes it easier to place follow up shots accurately and quickly. But, it's been found to sometimes fail to penetrate deeply enough when using hollow points (according to FBI research on ballistic gelatin), because they expand too quickly, and the lower mass of the bullet doesn't have enough intertia to get in deep enough to drill through vital organs and major blood vessels.
The only way to instantly incapacitate an attacker with a handgun, is to hit the central nervous system. A head shot is a much smaller target than the torso, and the spinal cord is about the width of a pencil. These are challenging targets at 10 feet or farther, even when you're shooting at paper or steel targets that don't move or shoot back. Which is why most shooters train to aim for center mass. The most reliable mechanism by which a handgun bullet incapacitates an assailant shot in the torso (or extremeties), is rapid blood loss. The loss of roughly 20% of a person's total blood volume causes loss of consciousness. There are other effects that are somewhat controversial, like hydrostatic shock, and the psychological power of being shot, etc. But, if you drill enough holes in an attacker, you can rely on him bleeding out rapidly, even if you don't hit his heart or a lung and take the wind out of him.

[GrieferKiller]

I'd like to ask you and the wonderful *ahem* Senator Lindsay Graham this question: What do you intend to say to the grieving parents of murdered children #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc. when you wouldn't agree to pass a bill limiting the rounds in a magazine to 10 rounds? What exactly will your words be? :dunno:

What will YOU say to the families of law-abiding citizens who were unable to stop an assault on their loved ones and themselves, because some ill conceived law was passed that robbed them of the extra rounds that might have saved their lives?
Besides a number of mass shootings that received massive media attention, there is no data to show that magazines containing more than 10 rounds are a critical factor in the 30,000 deaths attributed to firearms yearly in the US.
The Virgina Tech shooter was armed with a Glock 19, that comes standard with 15 round magazines, and a .22LR pistol with 10 round magazines, and he killed 32 people. When speculating on the role violent video games may have played in the Sandy Hook shooting, the investigators said Adam Lanza was swapping out his 30 round magazines frequently, the way one often reloads in a combat video game, rather than shooting until each magazine was empty. So, apparently he had plenty of opportunity to change magazines. If he would have shot each victim once with a well placed shot to center mass, or a head shot (easier to do with a rifle), rather than shooting each of them 3 to 11 times, I doubt the death toll would have been any less, if he had a bunch of 10 round magazines.

[GrieferKiller]

I'm sure you would agree that cops not only have the time, they're required to find it, and, it's paid for.
They don't keep their jobs if they ain't proficient in the use of their firearms, supposed to highly skilled in the art of shootin' bad guys azzzes off in fact, but police have proven time and time and time and time again and again and again, that they often, waayyyyy too often, can't hit the side of a f'n barn...want me to find you the statistic regarding how many bullets per kill it takes in war, with very highly trained, extremely motivated, professionally equipt and prepared in each & every way, soldiers?
Just another freakin' tool for the N.itwit R.ifle A.ss'ociation, oh, and I really think you should seek some help, and by the sound of it, perhaps some kleenex.

Your post is such a jumbled incoherent mess, I'm not sure whether you're arguing with me or against me :p We're talking about whether or not private citizens should have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, not the police, or soldiers.

[GrieferKiller]

I think I'd rather that someone just get murdered in a home invasion than have them spraying bullets all through the neighborhood. One dead is better than... well, how many bullets are in that thing, anyway?

I'm not advocating that people "spray and pray" with their eyes closed. One should be as careful as possible to avoid shooting innocent bystanders.

[Sepia and Dust]

So Americans have got to get with the program and stop b*tching about having gun rights taken away and how scary liberal Democrats are.

You've fully entered the territory of the absurd with that comment.




If Gunners don't want more gun restrictions and feel the way you do, but don't have answers regarding background checks or mental health access for people who need it, then they need to take matters into their own hands and rid cities themselves of the problems that cause a need for guns in the first place.

Go ask for deputizing from the local police force! Volunteer to patrol neighborhoods - ARMED, no less! - with blessings from law enforcement! Set examples to kids by enrolling in gun safety classes! I am sooooooooooooooooooo not standing in your way - I'm all for that!


More absurdity.




But as far as I can tell, there are an awful lot of lazy-ass conservative Gunners out there who won't step up to the plate.
And that's why I started this whole Draconian negotiation, because it at least gets a conversation started where brainstorming occurs.

For future reference, the above is not a conversation. It is a rant. One that is completely detached from anything resembling reality.

[GrieferKiller]

I have to agree with Sepia.

I don't personally believe that you should be shooting anything if you don't reasonably believe that you will hit the target. On the whole, a single shot or a "Hey, jerk, I have a gun!" would be enough to stop a robber. People typically do not want to die, and that lizard part of your brain takes over. In this instance, if there was another intruder, I think his buddy would have gotten the hell out of there after hearing his friend screaming in agony after being shot.

Spraying 15 or 30 bullets into a neighborhood is reckless and stupid. People die from ricochets, or get shot by them, frequently enough. The home defender would become a defendant in a murder trial. Last I checked, collateral damage is not an acceptable argument in court.

If you're going to keep a loaded gun with the intention of using it in self defense, you should become proficient in firing it, obviously. But, when confronted with a life or death situation, the adrenaline flows, and your fine motor control is reduced. A larger magazine increases your odds of placing enough shots in vital areas to stop an attacker, or multiple attackers. Nobody is advocating firing away blindly and recklessly. Yes, sometimes the mere sight of a gun is enough to end a confrontation, but you can't count on that, and you need to be prepared to pull the trigger if you must. And you should keep pulling that trigger until you know the threat is eliminated. You don't shoot once and assume the guy's done for the day.

[Sepia and Dust]

The woman did all she could to get away from the intruder first, retreating all the way into a crawl space. He followed one of her kids upstairs, with a crowbar in his hands. And then she did what she had to do. The primary concern of any mother in her place is to protect her children, and herself. She's not morally or legally obligated to spare the piece of trash that broke into her house.


I don't think any of that has been questioned.




I would have drilled him the second he crossed the threshold.Y
You don't know that one shot would have permanently demotivated him, and you'd be stupid to put the lives of your family at risk, hoping for a change of heart from some creep that broke into your house. There have been reported cases where guys have been riddled with 9mm rounds, and kept fighting. If I'm going to go to the trouble and expense of purchasing an expensive weapon, and training to use it, and cleaning it, and making sure it's 100% functional at all times, I want it to be packed with all the bullets it can hold. I don't want to fail to stop an intruder because I didn't have enough rounds.


She wasn't particularly well-trained with that gun. It was her husband's gun, and I doubt that she'd ever even picked it up before.




Especially if it's a smaller caliber like 9mm. I'm not knocking 9mm. It's the most popular pistol cartridge in the world, because it's relatively cheaper. Large enough to be effective, but small enough to pack a lot of rounds into a magazine without making the grip of the pistol too large for small and medium hands to grasp. It recoils softer than larger calibers like the .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10mm, which makes it easier to place follow up shots accurately and quickly. But, it's been found to sometimes fail to penetrate deeply enough when using hollow points (according to FBI research on ballistic gelatin), because they expand too quickly, and the lower mass of the bullet doesn't have enough intertia to get in deep enough to drill through vital organs and major blood vessels.


Gun-nut porn. What, you couldn't find a way to include muzzle velocity?




The only way to instantly incapacitate an attacker with a handgun, is to hit the central nervous system. A head shot is a much smaller target than the torso, and the spinal cord is about the width of a pencil. These are challenging targets at 10 feet or farther, even when you're shooting at paper or steel targets that don't move or shoot back. Which is why most shooters train to aim for center mass. The most reliable mechanism by which a handgun bullet incapacitates an assailant shot in the torso (or extremeties), is rapid blood loss. The loss of roughly 20% of a person's total blood volume causes loss of consciousness. There are other effects that are somewhat controversial, like hydrostatic shock, and the psychological power of being shot, etc. But, if you drill enough holes in an attacker, you can rely on him bleeding out rapidly, even if you don't hit his heart or a lung and take the wind out of him.

Truly spoken like someone who's never been shot. Five shots was sufficient force to stop the attack and protect her family. Since the invader doesn't seem to have been either a dusthead or a psychotic, one shot would have taken the fight out of him.

[GrieferKiller]

But they have the money to buy firearms and the bullets. Priorities, priorities.

An unskilled marksman with a gun in hand is an irresponsible idiot, no matter how well-intentioned they are. This is why I'm in favor of mandatory gun marksmanship and safety training classes. No certificate of completion; no license for said gun. No license and you're considered a felon. Jail. Fines. Revocation of all other gun licenses for mandatory two years or more. End of discussion.

You should practice enough to be proficient at the very minimum. And most people that keep guns for self defense, also enjoy target shooting. But, even if you're a pistol shooting champion, having 16 rounds in your Glock 19, gives you better odds against an attacker (or attackers), than a six shot .38 revolver. Though the revolver might make a more concealable carry weapon.

[exzel]

GNTLGNT might know this better than me, but do they even sell many single action revolvers any more (where you have to cock the hammer in order for it to shoot)? Just about every revolver I see sold is a double action revolver… where you just pull the trigger and it goes bang, shot after shot, until the bullets are all gone. Therefore the idea of restricting or banning “semi-auto handguns” makes no sense, other than for some feel-good sense of accomplishment by the anti-gun crowd.

[GrieferKiller]

I don't think any of that has been questioned..

The person I replied to was questioning exactly that.


She wasn't particularly well-trained with that gun. It was her husband's gun, and I doubt that she'd ever even picked it up before.

In the recorded call during the incident, he said "like I showed you" to his wife. So, apparently he gave her at least one shooting lesson.


Gun-nut porn. What, you couldn't find a way to include muzzle velocity?

Choosing a gun for self defense and preparing to use it effectively involves a lot of research, and some ghoulish contemplations. Sadly, as long as human beings are capable and willing to do harm unto others, we will need to prepare to defend ourselves. This starts with some non sugar coated sober contemplations.


Truly spoken like someone who's never been shot. Five shots was sufficient force to stop the attack and protect her family. Since the invader doesn't seem to have been either a dusthead or a psychotic, one shot would have taken the fight out of him.

Five .38 caliber rounds to the neck and face did not put the intruder down. He was able to flee the home and drive off! He could have retaliated in a fit of rage and beat her to death with the crowbar instead. There's a video called "Deadly Effects" that is part of the curriculum for Administration of Justice majors at my local community college. I borrowed it when I was deciding on my first handgun. Part of the video describes a criminal that was shot over thirty times with 9mm rounds by police officers, and we was still shooting back! Two 12 gauge slugs to his spine finally stopped him.

The 10mm cartridge was developed for the FBI, because of an infamous shooting that took the lives of two FBI agents. They were armed with 9mm handguns, and placed their shots accurately into the center mass of a criminal, but they didn't penetrate enough to fatally wound him. He was able to continue shooting back, and killed the two FBI agents. This prompted the FBI to develop a more powerful handgun round, which the 10mm certainly is. But, it recoils even worse than the .45 ACP, and the longer cartridge requires a larger grip. The FBI wanted to issue the same gun to both it's male and female agents, so they developed the .40 S&W, which is the same caliber as the 10mm, but has a shorter casing with a lighter charge, and doesn't require a larger frame or grip to accomodate it. The recoil is more manageable.

[hossenpepper]

some feel-good sense of accomplishment by the anti-gun crowd.

Oh yes, more wise statements.

Because after all, your opinion that you like guns is much more important than someone's who doesn't. After all they are so silly, aren't they? It's obviated by having an opinion contrary to yours, isn't it? Like a bunch of schoolgirls jumping up and down shouting "squeeeeeeee".

[Sepia and Dust]

The woman did all she could to get away from the intruder first, retreating all the way into a crawl space. He followed one of her kids upstairs, with a crowbar in his hands.


That statement is at odds with what the article you linked to says. He rang the bell, the woman and her kids hid. The guy broke in with a crowbar and started rummaging. When he opened the door to the crawlspace, she shot him.




In the recorded call during the incident, he said "like I showed you" to his wife. So, apparently he gave her at least one shooting lesson.


Ah, that's true. Glad she had some training, at least.




Five .38 caliber rounds to the neck and face did not put the intruder down.


Yeah, they did put him down. He begged her to stop shooting, and she ordered him to lie on the floor. He obeyed until the woman and her kids were gone.




He was able to flee the home and drive off! He could have retaliated in a fit of rage and beat her to death with the crowbar instead.


No, he couldn't have. He wanted to escape, not fight.

[GrieferKiller]

No, he couldn't have. He wanted to escape, not fight.

He broke into her house. You can't know what he might have done other than flee. The point is that he was still capable of fleeing the house and driving off, not what his intent was at that point. She emptied her revolver at him, hitting him with five out of six shots, and he was not neutralized. Ten rounds in some cases might not be enough. Fifteen might not even be enough. But, the more rounds you have, the better your chances are that you can eliminate the threat, whether that means rendering the assailant unconscious, or dead. Personally, I prefer dead. There's no way they're coming back for payback if they get off on a technicality, or try to sue me in civil court for defending myself or something. Though most Castle Doctrine laws in most states prevent such civil law suits.

[GNTLGNT]

but do they even sell many single action revolvers any more

...not as many since "the West was won":)...but single actions are stil popular with collectors and shooters, athough a niche market...and one sport in particular I can think of...that being Cowboy Action Shooting...

[Sepia and Dust]

He broke into her house. You can't know what he might have done other than flee. The point is that he was still capable of fleeing the house and driving off, not what his intent was at that point. She emptied her revolver at him, hitting him with five out of six shots, and he was not neutralized. Ten rounds in some cases might not be enough. Fifteen might not even be enough. But, the more rounds you have, the better your chances are that you can eliminate the threat, whether that means rendering the assailant unconscious, or dead. Personally, I prefer dead. There's no way they're coming back for payback if they get off on a technicality, or try to sue me in civil court for defending myself or something. Though most Castle Doctrine laws in most states prevent such civil law suits.

I think that lying on the floor, unarmed and bleeding and begging her to stop shooting, counts as incapacitated.

[GrieferKiller]

I think that lying on the floor, unarmed and bleeding and begging her to stop shooting, counts as incapacitated.

She was OUT OF AMMO! He didn't need to beg her to stop doing anything. HE GOT UP AND DROVE AWAY! If he had the capacity to flee the scene and drive off, he had the capacity to persist in whatever nefarious act he'd planned to commit in the first place. You just can't get wrap your head around that, can you?

[Moderator]

She was OUT OF AMMO! He didn't need to beg her to stop doing anything. HE GOT UP AND DROVE AWAY! If he had the capacity to flee the scene and drive off, he had the capacity to persist in whatever nefarious act he'd planned to commit in the first place. You just can't get wrap your head around that, can you?

From the article that you posted:

Slater was then pleading for his life, Donnie Herman told the 911 operator.

The woman fired six times, striking Slater with five bullets. Slater was still conscious, however, and the mother of two ordered him to stay on the ground while she fled with the children.


I may be misreading but it sounds to me like he left after she had left the house with her children. He did not attempt to follow her or to inflict further harm--he was more concerned with getting himself medical attention. I'm curious as to why she did not leave the house with her children in the first place? Did she not have a back door she could have used to escape and go to a neighbor (I can see a house in the picture so it's not like they're miles from a neighbor) while waiting for help? Why did she not say something to the intruder when she heard him ringing the doorbell? He was obviously there to burglarize the house and it is also very possible that when he heard that someone was home, he would have moved on to an easier target. Also, she used a .38 revolver which I do not believe would be affected by any of the proposals for gun control.

[PatInTheHat]

You should .......
Yeah a lotta of that been goin' 'round for a long time, seems to me to be that's justa about the entire crux of a whole cornucopia o' complicated problems, a whole lotta shouldas, shoulda done thises, should done that's, Shoulda shoulda shouldas we got your Red Hot Shouldas Here.
Should probably start by actually thinkin', should:y:.
I say we legislate, 'should':cool2:!

[exzel]

I fear limiting magazines to 10 rounds will do little more than make millions of respected, responsible and currently law-abiding handgun owning citizens into instant felons.

[Sepia and Dust]

She was OUT OF AMMO! He didn't need to beg her to stop doing anything. HE GOT UP AND DROVE AWAY! If he had the capacity to flee the scene and drive off, he had the capacity to persist in whatever nefarious act he'd planned to commit in the first place. You just can't get wrap your head around that, can you?

Seriously, I'm about to propose a new law to our legislatures that requires anyone who owns a gun to receive a simple flesh wound to the leg. OK, not seriously, but you just don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that a gunshot wound--just one--makes you forget any nefarious schemes and plans, and damn quick.

You don't respawn. Nobody yells CUT! In the real world, you just bleed and you just hurt, then you bleed and hurt some more, then you wonder if you'll ever stop bleeding and hurting, then you become afraid that you will.

Maybe some dustheads or psychotics can take a shot and keep coming, but demondust isn't really a thing these days, and psychotics are more often pitiful rather than dangerous. The chance of either type just happening to break into a house where the owner is home and armed with a 30-round mag is... well, it isn't going to happen to you.

[GrieferKiller]

From the article that you posted:

Slater was then pleading for his life, Donnie Herman told the 911 operator.

The woman fired six times, striking Slater with five bullets. Slater was still conscious, however, and the mother of two ordered him to stay on the ground while she fled with the children.


I may be misreading but it sounds to me like he left after she had left the house with her children. He did not attempt to follow her or to inflict further harm--he was more concerned with getting himself medical attention. I'm curious as to why she did not leave the house with her children in the first place? Did she not have a back door she could have used to escape and go to a neighbor (I can see a house in the picture so it's not like they're miles from a neighbor) while waiting for help? Why did she not say something to the intruder when she heard him ringing the doorbell? He was obviously there to burglarize the house and it is also very possible that when he heard that someone was home, he would have moved on to an easier target. Also, she used a .38 revolver which I do not believe would be affected by any of the proposals for gun control.

It does not matter what he chose to do after being shot. It is not relevant to my point. My point is that he WAS NOT INCAPACITATED by five .38 caliber rounds. I've mentioned other cases where guys were shot mulitple times with 9mm rounds and CONTINUED TO ATTACK. One case where two FBI agents were killed.

Why didn't she flee her own home? Should we all allow criminals to drive us away from our homes in mortal terror, hoping they'll have enough pity on us not to shoot us in the backs as we run, so that they can help themselves to whatever goods we gained through honest labor? I think not! Should home owners be expected to discern the intent of an intruder, and choose not to use deadly force, because perhaps the intruder is only after our possessions, and is not interested in sexually molesting us and our children, or dismembering us and eating us alive, or kidnapping and selling our teenage daughters into sexual slavery, or whatever else can and does happen. If you want to run, that's your choice. Anyone foolish enough to break into my house is dead meat.

[GrieferKiller]

Yeah a lotta of that been goin' 'round for a long time, seems to me to be that's justa about the entire crux of a whole cornucopia o' complicated problems, a whole lotta shouldas, shoulda done thises, should done that's, Shoulda shoulda shouldas we got your Red Hot Shouldas Here.
Should probably start by actually thinkin', should:y:.
I say we legislate, 'should':cool2:!

People "should" not inflict harm on other people. People "should" not break into other peoples' homes and businesses to steal their property. But, they do. Thus making it necessary for people to defend themselves. There are lots of "shoulds" involving how people interact with all kinds of products, that aren't spelled out by law, and would be too cumbersome to do so, and probably not have much impact anyway. When it comes to keeping guns for self defense or sport, use your head. Be prepared, and think things through, like how to use the gun, how to maintain it safely, how to store it safely, etc. Stupid people will find a way to kill themselves whether there are guns in the home or not.

[Moderator]

I'm not defending the intruder as being completely innocent in this but neither would I defend the homeowner. She had many different choices she could have made and didn't use any of them.

[GrieferKiller]

...but you just don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that a gunshot wound--just one--makes you forget any nefarious schemes and plans, and damn quick.

You don't respawn. Nobody yells CUT! In the real world, you just bleed and you just hurt, then you bleed and hurt some more, then you wonder if you'll ever stop bleeding and hurting, then you become afraid that you will.

Maybe some dustheads or psychotics can take a shot and keep coming, but demondust isn't really a thing these days, and psychotics are more often pitiful rather than dangerous. The chance of either type just happening to break into a house where the owner is home and armed with a 30-round mag is... well, it isn't going to happen to you.

Tell that to the families of the FBI agents that lost their lives, despite shooting a criminal multiple times in the torso with 9mm rounds. Often times soldiers in battle and law enforcement officers that were shot in the line of duty reported that they weren't even aware of being shot, until later. Or that they experience the force of impact of being shot, but the pain came later. Adrenaline works wonders. You can't count on the mere pain or shock of being shot to instantly stop an assailant.

[GrieferKiller]

I'm not defending the intruder as being completely innocent in this but neither would I defend the homeowner. She had many different choices she could have made and didn't use any of them.

She's a hero to many, including myself. Are you seriously advocating homeowners abandon their homes to anyone that would care to force their way in? What do you suppose would happen to crime rates, if it wasn't for those of us that have the spine to stand our ground and fight?

[Moderator]

I think it's a case by case basis and as I see it, she had other choices including announcing that she was there which would most likely have scared him away in the first place.

[Sepia and Dust]

Tell that to the families of the FBI agents that lost their lives, despite shooting a criminal multiple times in the torso with 9mm rounds. Often times soldiers in battle and law enforcement officers that were shot in the line of duty reported that they weren't even aware of being shot, until later. Or that they experience the force of impact of being shot, but the pain came later. Adrenaline works wonders. You can't count on the mere pain or shock of being shot to instantly stop an assailant.

Wow, somebody broke into an FBI agent's home? How crazy is that? Or are you comparing an ordinary homeowner to an FBI agent who actively goes looking for dangerous criminals?

I think that once somebody starts begging for their life, they're down for the count.

[Sepia and Dust]

She's a hero to many, including myself. Are you seriously advocating homeowners abandon their homes to anyone that would care to force their way in? What do you suppose would happen to crime rates, if it wasn't for those of us that have the spine to stand our ground and fight?

The spine? Seriously? Sounds to me like you're either an internet tough guy who'd probably piss his pants if confronted or, more troubling, you're wanting to eventually be in a situation where you can shoot somebody and not be held legally accountable.

[hossenpepper]

but you just don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that a gunshot wound--just one--makes you forget any nefarious schemes and plans, and damn quick.


Good point here. Isn't this the gun advocacy's argument as to why guns are the best and most effective form of personal/home protection in the first place? So, again why are high capacity magazines needed if the gun is so effective as to quickly defend one's self or end a situation?


The chance of either type just happening to break into a house where the owner is home and armed with a 30-round mag is... well, it isn't going to happen to you.

It's really hard to find stats that reflect what a minute chance there is of being caught in one of these "randomly". That means the intruder just picked a house and broke in. Most of these types of things that get put in this statistical category wind up being the result of drug deals gone wrong or the people involved knew each other in some way. In fact, roaming bandits doing invasions for the purpose of personal harm are so rare in my experience on Earth that when they do happen, they are big local (and sometimes national) news stories.

When I was a kid, there was a guy that had been breaking in and raping women when they were showering, or if they weren't, he would force them to shower to wash away all the evidence. Most times he would then burglarize their homes too. The local news outlets dubbed him "The Shower Stall Rapist". I remember that there was a lot of talk of women getting guns, taking self defense classes and such. This is in a state where most people already own guns. In the end, someone called in a tip and they caught him. He was charged with 27 rapes they could piece together. They suspected he was guilty of some other similar cases and other burglaries, but they couldn't muster the evidence to get more convictions. After he was initially convicted and sentenced to a total of 800 years in prison, he escaped and kidnapped a woman and raped her. He was caught and received another 250 years or something like that. In most of his assaults he used his size to overpower the women. He used a knife in a couple of cases, and a gun once, but never shot or stabbed the women. In most of the cases, the women had guns in their houses. Not one of them was able to get to their firearm, much less defend themselves with it. This guy did these acts well over 40 times in a 6 month period the authorities believed. At one point, he was averaging a rape/break-in every 3-4 days. And not once did a single person pull a gun on him, get a single shot off, nor was he captured due to the magic of a gun.

I guess I have two points with my story. First, this kind of thing is so rare in most places that here I am remembering it 30 years later with some detail. Second, it is another example where it's illustrated that the fact one has a gun, regardless of magazine size, still doesn't help them. At the very least, it shows just how weakly supported the case for high capacity magazines is by the random home invasion argument.

I will say it again, if one would learn to shoot, they wouldn't need more than one or two shots to stop an intruder or hit a hunting target.

[PatInTheHat]

What do you suppose would happen to crime rates, if it wasn't for those of us that have the spine to stand our ground and fight?

And just how many fights of any kind have you actually been in tough guy, well you know, approximate roundish numbery like:eyebrow:?

[GrieferKiller]

Wow, somebody broke into an FBI agent's home? How crazy is that? Or are you comparing an ordinary homeowner to an FBI agent who actively goes looking for dangerous criminals?

I think that once somebody starts begging for their life, they're down for the count.

How is that relevant? You're desperately grabbing at straws to avoid admitting that you're wrong. The bottom line is that a person shot multiple times with handgun bullets can sometimes persist in an attack. If the guys is physically able to get up and get into a car and drive off, he's still potentially dangerous. The more rounds you have, the better your chances of stopping an attacker. The larger the caliber, the better your odds are of stopping an attacker as well, though there's a trade off in ammo capacity and greater recoil, that can limit your ability to rapidly and accurately, place consecutive shots into the attacker.

[GrieferKiller]

I think it's a case by case basis and as I see it, she had other choices including announcing that she was there which would most likely have scared him away in the first place.

He followed one of her kids upstairs, and she retreated all the way into a crawl space to get away from him first. That doesn't seem like something a mere burglar would do. In any case, she had every right to shoot him dead on the spot, whatever his intentions were.

[GrieferKiller]

And just how many fights of any kind have you actually been in tough guy, well you know, approximate roundish numbery like:eyebrow:?

I've beaten several people within an inch of their lives. And they had it coming.

Years ago when I was sharing an apartment at college, a couple of morons kicked my door in. I was upstairs about to drift off to sleep at the time. Heard the noise and came down the stairs to see one of them bolt through the door, and the other one trying to get my stereo receiver out of the cabinet. He bolted after his partner in crime, after dropping my amplifier to the floor, and I sprinted down the sidewalk in bare feet wearing nothing but a pair of tighty whities. Tackled him at full bore, and grabbed him by his hair and beat his head against the concrete curb in front of throngs of shocked/delighted street revelers. Halloween is a big deal at this University, and the whole town is full of crazed college kids high on everything natural or synthetic known to man. I dragged his unconscious ass down the sidewalk back into my apartment, leaving a nice blood trail for the cops to follow. I was bench pressing nearly 400 lbs at the time, and still come pretty close to it these days. Had I owned guns at the time, I would have saved myself a run, and shot them both dead on the spot. Sadly, the first one out the door got away. As for the second...he narrowly escaped being tortured to reveal the name and address of the first, because my roommate was a little more soft hearted, and persuaded me to just call the cops.

But no, I've not personally been in any gun fights. Not yet. Only an idiot would really want that to happen, but I'm capable of it, if I have to.

[GNTLGNT]

And just how many fights of any kind have you actually been in tough guy, well you know, approximate roundish numbery like:eyebrow:?

....now there ya go...pokin' with a stick again!...I DO hope it's the appropriate caliber stick...ya know, bust some knots in his azz and all...

[GrieferKiller]

Good point here. Isn't this the gun advocacy's argument as to why guns are the best and most effective form of personal/home protection in the first place? So, again why are high capacity magazines needed if the gun is so effective as to quickly defend one's self or end a situation? The cases I've mentioned show why you can't always count on one or two or three, or even five, rounds effectively stopping an attacker. As the title of my thread states "sometimes" 10 rounds is not enough. A single .22LR to the head would probably instantly stop an attacker. 9mm rounds to the heart and lungs, penetrating sufficiently deep to perforate major arteries and cause massive rapid blood loss and deprive the attacker of the use of vital organs would most likely quickly end an attack. But, the more rounds you have, the better your odds are of causing enough damage in the right place to put the bastard down and save your life.



When I was a kid, there was a guy that had been breaking in and raping women when they were showering... And not once did a single person pull a gun on him, get a single shot off, nor was he captured due to the magic of a gun. Perhaps because his victims were unarmed, and unprepared. If he'd broke into my house, his raping days would have ended instantly. Merely having a gun is not a magic talisman. You have to be able to get to it, and you have to be prepared and willing to use it. It's better to have a gun, and not need it. Than to need a gun, and not have one. Same goes for "high" capacity magazines.


I will say it again, if one would learn to shoot, they wouldn't need more than one or two shots to stop an intruder or hit a hunting target. Spoken like someone who has never shot a pistol in his life. I've had guns since I was a kid, and I'm a damn good shot. But, I recognize the limitations of accuracy with pistols, compared to long guns. The tiniest flinch when squeezing the trigger disrupts your sight picture and causes the round to be way off. And shooting at a live moving target that is trying to hurt you, is a bit different than punching holes in static paper targets. Sure, practice will make you better. But, it's still better to have all the rounds you can, when your life, and the lives of your loved ones are at stake.

[PatInTheHat]

I've beaten several people within an inch of their lives. And they had it coming.


But no, I've not personally been in any gun fights. Not yet. Only an idiot would really want that to happen, but I'm capable of it, if I have to.

Several & 0 huh, uh-huh, yeah I'm sure:rolleyes:
Butt thanks ever so much for some honesty, I sincerely hope you get to fulfill your fantasy one day, hopefully with another crackpot with similar personal values & tastes in stupidity, or a well deserved, probably overdue, med adjustment, which ever comes first day:y::upside::y:.
Seriously, seek counseling.

[Sepia and Dust]

I've beaten several people within an inch of their lives. And they had it coming.

...

But no, I've not personally been in any gun fights. Not yet. Only an idiot would really want that to happen, but I'm capable of it, if I have to.

Nothing more to see here, folks.

[Sundrop]

I've beaten several people within an inch of their lives. And they had it coming.

Years ago when I was sharing an apartment at college, a couple of morons kicked my door in. I was upstairs about to drift off to sleep at the time. Heard the noise and came down the stairs to see one of them bolt through the door, and the other one trying to get my stereo receiver out of the cabinet. He bolted after his partner in crime, after dropping my amplifier to the floor, and I sprinted down the sidewalk in bare feet wearing nothing but a pair of tighty whities. Tackled him at full bore, and grabbed him by his hair and beat his head against the concrete curb in front of throngs of shocked/delighted street revelers. Halloween is a big deal at this University, and the whole town is full of crazed college kids high on everything natural or synthetic known to man. I dragged his unconscious ass down the sidewalk back into my apartment, leaving a nice blood trail for the cops to follow. I was bench pressing nearly 400 lbs at the time, and still come pretty close to it these days. Had I owned guns at the time, I would have saved myself a run, and shot them both dead on the spot. Sadly, the first one out the door got away. As for the second...he narrowly escaped being tortured to reveal the name and address of the first, because my roommate was a little more soft hearted, and persuaded me to just call the cops.

But no, I've not personally been in any gun fights. Not yet. Only an idiot would really want that to happen, but I'm capable of it, if I have to.

Napoleon Complex, much??
This is the type of mentality that scares me, and it is the reason that I am totally for complete mental history background checks as well as history of violence checks.
Someone who has this capacity for violence should never ever be allowed to own a gun or any other weapon.
Owning a gun is one thing, but going around looking for a reason to use it to harm another human is another thing entirely.......

[Moderator]

He followed one of her kids upstairs, and she retreated all the way into a crawl space to get away from him first. That doesn't seem like something a mere burglar would do. In any case, she had every right to shoot him dead on the spot, whatever his intentions were.

Again from the article you posted:

According to police reports, Slater repeatedly rang the family’s doorbell in Loganville, Ga., that morning, prompting the woman to call her husband. She was advised to take her children and hide in a crawlspace, while her husband dialed 911. Slater reportedly used a crowbar to break into the home, and was rummaging through the house until he made his way to the family’s hiding place.
“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.

First, actually ringing the doorbell repeatedly does sound like something a mere burglar would do. It's a well-known M.O. to see if someone is home before breaking in. Again, why did she not respond to let him know there was someone in the house? She didn't have to open the door to do that and he would have still been on the outside, most likely thinking move on and try a different house where I don't have to deal with people.

No, he did not follow one of her kids upstairs. There was nothing in the report that said that. It said said that she and the kids were hiding in a crawlspace. Yet again from the report you posted but which I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read, he was rummaging through the house until he happened to come to the hiding place. Sounds more like behavior of a burglar than someone whose primary purpose is to cause physical harm to another person.

There are many holes in this story including why she called her husband instead of 911. As he told the 911 operator, he was not close enough to respond and needed the police to go to the home. It may not have any basis in what was going on but I have to confess that my first thought was "what kind of controlling husband does she have that she couldn't act on her own to call the police?"

You'd mentioned earlier seeing her as a hero. I do not. I see her as someone who was terrified, pumped with adrenaline, and firing repeatedly as her husband is screaming at her to do so but not because she was in actual imminent danger if the guy is pleading with her to stop shooting. Listening to the 911 call, it didn't take her that long to get to the neighbor's house where she finally called the police. Why didn't she just do that in the first place and remove herself and her children from possible danger? That was just as viable an option from what I'm gathering from the information given in the article.



It does not matter what he chose to do after being shot. It is not relevant to my point. My point is that he WAS NOT INCAPACITATED by five .38 caliber rounds. I've mentioned other cases where guys were shot mulitple times with 9mm rounds and CONTINUED TO ATTACK. One case where two FBI agents were killed.

Why didn't she flee her own home? Should we all allow criminals to drive us away from our homes in mortal terror, hoping they'll have enough pity on us not to shoot us in the backs as we run, so that they can help themselves to whatever goods we gained through honest labor? I think not! Should home owners be expected to discern the intent of an intruder, and choose not to use deadly force, because perhaps the intruder is only after our possessions, and is not interested in sexually molesting us and our children, or dismembering us and eating us alive, or kidnapping and selling our teenage daughters into sexual slavery, or whatever else can and does happen. If you want to run, that's your choice. Anyone foolish enough to break into my house is dead meat.

I have no respect or admiration for people with this kind of mentality or who think that their first and/or only option is to use lethal force. No property is worth risking your or your family's life for and unless you are being faced with clear and imminent danger of your life and have the opportunity to do so, leaving the scene to remove yourself from possible physical harm is an option that should be considered.

[atomicinchworm]

Should home owners be expected to discern the intent of an intruder, and choose not to use deadly force, because perhaps the intruder is only after our possessions, and is not interested in sexually molesting us and our children, or dismembering us and eating us alive, or kidnapping and selling our teenage daughters into sexual slavery, or whatever else can and does happen. If you want to run, that's your choice. Anyone foolish enough to break into my house is dead meat.

You should assume firstly, that they are after your possessions.

Do you know why?

Because all of that stuff you mentioned are dumb things to be afraid of. They happen, for sure, but they are insanely uncommon. Most people breaking into a home what your stuff; they don't want the homeowner to be home because they don't want to deal with it. Burglars might be breaking the law, but it is a huge leap from robbery to murder. Not all criminals are capable of murder, because not all *people* are. Most burgalars just want some easy cash.

Seriously though, people like you scare me more than the random potential of a guy breaking into my house. Do you know what is the most common lead up to murder? Some guy with anger problems with a gun that reacts without thinking and shoots someone in anger. Not a guy breaking into your house. Not the insane cannibal. Not the white slave trafficker.

It is your boyfriend or your husband or your friend. People you know.

Leathal force should never be the first option when, a vast majority of the time, a warning shot or single bullet to the leg would be enough. I don't understand this fantasy that people have of killing some nameless intruder with their gun. I honestly just don't get it.

[mustangclaire]

I've beaten several people within an inch of their lives. And they had it coming.

Years ago when I was sharing an apartment at college, a couple of morons kicked my door in. I was upstairs about to drift off to sleep at the time. Heard the noise and came down the stairs to see one of them bolt through the door, and the other one trying to get my stereo receiver out of the cabinet. He bolted after his partner in crime, after dropping my amplifier to the floor, and I sprinted down the sidewalk in bare feet wearing nothing but a pair of tighty whities. Tackled him at full bore, and grabbed him by his hair and beat his head against the concrete curb in front of throngs of shocked/delighted street revelers. Halloween is a big deal at this University, and the whole town is full of crazed college kids high on everything natural or synthetic known to man. I dragged his unconscious ass down the sidewalk back into my apartment, leaving a nice blood trail for the cops to follow. I was bench pressing nearly 400 lbs at the time, and still come pretty close to it these days. Had I owned guns at the time, I would have saved myself a run, and shot them both dead on the spot. Sadly, the first one out the door got away. As for the second...he narrowly escaped being tortured to reveal the name and address of the first, because my roommate was a little more soft hearted, and persuaded me to just call the cops.

But no, I've not personally been in any gun fights. Not yet. Only an idiot would really want that to happen, but I'm capable of it, if I have to.

REALLY??!! You do realise you "said that out loud" don't you??!!!! Or are you joking? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt an am presuming you are joking. You MUST be. No-ones THAT stupid....

[GNTLGNT]

No property is worth risking your or your family's life for


...and there folks, is one of the first rules of the concealed carry class I took...second rule, if you feel that your life or the lives of your loved ones are at risk...then aim for center mass and shoot to kill...period....no TV gunplay heroics...put the threat DOWN....

[GrieferKiller]

Several & 0 huh, uh-huh, yeah I'm sure:rolleyes:
Butt thanks ever so much for some honesty, I sincerely hope you get to fulfill your fantasy one day, hopefully with another crackpot with similar personal values & tastes in stupidity, or a well deserved, probably overdue, med adjustment, which ever comes first day:y::upside::y:.
Seriously, seek counseling.

Yeah, I'm the bad guy here. Two morons valued their own lives less than they valued my stereo amplifier (and whatever else they might have carted off had I not been home at the time), which I worked part time to buy while maintaining a near perfect GPA. You folks that have a problem with people standing up for themselves, should just put all your stuff out on the lawn right now for whoever wants it. That will save any would be thieves the trouble of running you out of your house first.

[GrieferKiller]

REALLY??!! You do realise you "said that out loud" don't you??!!!! Or are you joking? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt an am presuming you are joking. You MUST be. No-ones THAT stupid....

No, there's no joke here. You know what the police said when they came to cart the unconscious piece of **** off to jail (by way of the hospital)? "Looks like this guy broke into the wrong apartment!" About a month later I got a follow up call about the incident, and I told them my amp was destroyed when he dropped it (it didn't have a scratch on it and was in perfect working condition), and told them it was worth twice what I paid for it. They made him pay me $600 restitution :p I got paid $600 for nearly cracking this twit's head open like an egg :)

[Moderator]

That you value property over human life certainly does say a lot about you.

[GrieferKiller]

That you value property over human life certainly does say a lot about you.

THEY valued my stereo over their own lives. THEY kicked my door down, willing to risk whatever might happen to them, or to whomever might be on the other side of that door. What I did was totally within my rights as a legal occupant of that dwelling. If I'd shot them both dead with 12 gauge 00 Buckshot, it would have served them right.

[Lily Sawyer]

THEY valued my stereo over their own lives. THEY kicked my door down, willing to risk whatever might happen to them, or to whomever might be on the other side of that door. What I did was totally within my rights as a legal occupant of that dwelling. If I'd shot them both dead with 12 gauge 00 Buckshot, it would have served them right.

I'll have to disagree with you there, Bob.
Burglary, breaking and entering, and attempt at burglary are not punished with the death penalty in U.S. courts. Even if you lived in a Stand Your Ground state, there wouldn't be a judge on the bench who'd let you get away with passing a death sentence using your own firearm. You'd still face manslaughter charges, especially if the intruders weren't armed.
And then where would your gun have gotten you? You still wouldn't have use of your stereo and you'd be bouncing your self-sung tunes off the walls of a prison cell.

[Patricia A]

Jesse Lewis, killed at the age of 6. He was learning to ride a horse so that he could be a real cowboy.

To quote his father, "Is it right that I have to lay my boy to rest with a bullet in his head? No"

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa219/plcarmstrong/161726126.jpg


Neil Heslin, Jesse's dad, testified before Congress yesterday. This is a portion of his testimony.


http://youtu.be/qhEV6OSE7tg

[Moderator]

THEY valued my stereo over their own lives. THEY kicked my door down, willing to risk whatever might happen to them, or to whomever might be on the other side of that door. What I did was totally within my rights as a legal occupant of that dwelling. If I'd shot them both dead with 12 gauge 00 Buckshot, it would have served them right.

I don't think anyone is saying that the intruders weren't in the wrong for their actions but that you can't see how over-the-top your reaction was to it or that your actions were so out of proportion to the crime is troubling, to say the least. I'm not closing down the thread--yet, but personally I'm done here and will not further encourage your posts by responding to any of them. One thing I've come to learn over the years is that with some people there's really no point trying to be reasonable and I've got better things to do than trying to engage in what obviously will not be meaningful exchanges. It's not conceding that the other person is right and that I have no basis for arguments rebutting their ideas, it's realizing the futility of even attempting it.

[PatInTheHat]

Yeah, I'm the bad guy here. Two morons valued their own lives less than they valued my stereo amplifier (and whatever else they might have carted off had I not been home at the time), which I worked part time to buy while maintaining a near perfect GPA. You folks that have a problem with people standing up for themselves, should just put all your stuff out on the lawn right now for whoever wants it. That will save any would be thieves the trouble of running you out of your house first.

No, no your the lunatic here, butt yeah that's me.
No really, I do have all kinds of stuff outside, some rather valuable, some not so very much (inside, I have my 90 year old Mama, and it's of my opinion, that yeah, yeah she's kinda valuable), we're out in the boonies surrounded by woods and nothin' and hills, we're on a looong dark stretch of a well traveled US hwy, nary a single neighbor within eyeballin' distance, and barely within' scream your lungs out but they just ain't quite hearin' ya, and there ain't one gun, nor even a single grain of powder, not in this house there ain't, well, it's just we like to keep it smellin' good.
Now you come on down to The Mighty BlueGrass and prowl my joint, go'head and monkey around, and bring your security blanket/pistola if'n ya want to, butt Pup, then ya best not be forgettin' your Proctologist..word.
Yeah you keep on actin' like ya know somethin' about protecting you and yours, oh, and inflicting violence, I'm mean you seem bent on experiencing it, pert near gitty, but you have no freakin' idea, is what I'm flat out sayin', but just keep on keepin' on and most assuredly you'll get your wish...*SPOILER ALERT! it ain't really nothin' like in your electronic devices o' virtualuality mentality *.
Your just an immature tough talkin' pee panced excitable melodramatic little boy is what you sound like to me, and a tool taboot, but that ain't really your fault, only if you keep that ridiculous garbage up much longer, so get yourself a grip, check out this little thing we like to call, 'reality', and then do yourself the biggestest favor, grow the hell up.
(grow up:facepalm: I can't believe they make ME say that:glare:...was that payin' good homage to that "you folks" crack, just curious is all:rolleyes:)

[mustangclaire]

No, there's no joke here. You know what the police said when they came to cart the unconscious piece of **** off to jail (by way of the hospital)? "Looks like this guy broke into the wrong apartment!" About a month later I got a follow up call about the incident, and I told them my amp was destroyed when he dropped it (it didn't have a scratch on it and was in perfect working condition), and told them it was worth twice what I paid for it. They made him pay me $600 restitution :p I got paid $600 for nearly cracking this twit's head open like an egg :)
I find your attitude disgusting, repugnant, terrifying and you seem deliberately to be trying to provoke people with your, quite frankly, idiotic ramblings. I bid you good day sir.

[GrieferKiller]

I'll have to disagree with you there, Bob.
Burglary, breaking and entering, and attempt at burglary are not punished with the death penalty in U.S. courts. Even if you lived in a Stand Your Ground state, there wouldn't be a judge on the bench who'd let you get away with passing a death sentence using your own firearm. You'd still face manslaughter charges, especially if the intruders weren't armed.
And then where would your gun have gotten you? You still wouldn't have use of your stereo and you'd be bouncing your self-sung tunes off the walls of a prison cell.


Most states in the US abide by variations of the "Castle Doctrine", which provides legal residents with immunity from prosecution for using deadly force in the defense of their dwelling. I lived in Illinois at the time, and still do.


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

[GNTLGNT]

I don't think anyone is saying that the intruders weren't in the wrong for their actions but that you can't see how over-the-top your reaction was to it or that your actions were so out of proportion to the crime is troubling, to say the least. I'm not closing down the thread--yet, but personally I'm done here and will not further encourage your posts by responding to any of them. One thing I've come to learn over the years is that with some people there's really no point trying to be reasonable and I've got better things to do than trying to engage in what obviously will not be meaningful exchanges. It's not conceding that the other person is right and that I have no basis for arguments rebutting their ideas, it's realizing the futility of even attempting it.

....just a thought....it has become despairingly apparent here, that any of us who have tried to put up reasoned disagreement with this cat, are simply tilting at windmills, coz extremism has trumped all...rather than be repulsed by this, I am simply saddened...may your return to the Prim be a joyous one....

[Claude]

I guess I am a little disappointed in the essay. I do not like being referred to as paranoid simply because I like guns. I do not even begrudge those who want to go out and blast away at targets with semi-auto weapons. It can be great fun. Maybe you should try it before you condemn others. I also was a little miffed at your reference to six million jews being killed in Germany. The total number of Germans was over twenty million. Why not join the NRA so you can get the other side of the story. As far as guns being used to murder children in schools, I abhor that happening. Maybe if every teacher had a gun we could put an end to it. You may not believe that we need to keep an eye on our government but then they that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Also, on my last trip to England even though I did not worry much about being shot but was constantly worried about being blown up. This is America though and not an isolated country like England or Australia.
Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=0sujnvIV4g4

[kingricefan]

I guess I am a little disappointed in the essay. I do not like being referred to as paranoid simply because I like guns. I do not even begrudge those who want to go out and blast away at targets with semi-auto weapons. It can be great fun. Maybe you should try it before you condemn others. I also was a little miffed at your reference to six million jews being killed in Germany. The total number of Germans was over twenty million. Why not join the NRA so you can get the other side of the story. As far as guns being used to murder children in schools, I abhor that happening. Maybe if every teacher had a gun we could put an end to it. You may not believe that we need to keep an eye on our government but then they that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Also, on my last trip to England even though I did not worry much about being shot but was constantly worried about being blown up. This is America though and not an isolated country like England or Australia.
Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=0sujnvIV4g4

So, to quote you here: 'they that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.' Are all of these school/mall/theater shootings now a part of our 'history' and, if so, then what are YOU not learning from it? These people didn't die at the hand of someone throwing a lollypop at them. Are you going to wait until 20,000,000 people die from some nutbog using an assault weapon before you wake up and see that there's a problem? Wake up!

[GNTLGNT]

I guess I am a little disappointed in the essay. I do not like being referred to as paranoid simply because I like guns. I do not even begrudge those who want to go out and blast away at targets with semi-auto weapons. It can be great fun. Maybe you should try it before you condemn others. I also was a little miffed at your reference to six million jews being killed in Germany. The total number of Germans was over twenty million. Why not join the NRA so you can get the other side of the story. As far as guns being used to murder children in schools, I abhor that happening. Maybe if every teacher had a gun we could put an end to it. You may not believe that we need to keep an eye on our government but then they that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Also, on my last trip to England even though I did not worry much about being shot but was constantly worried about being blown up. This is America though and not an isolated country like England or Australia.
Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=0sujnvIV4g4

....somehow, the whole point of the essay seems to be missed here...

[PatInTheHat]

THEY valued my stereo over their own lives. THEY kicked my door down, willing to risk whatever might happen to them, or to whomever might be on the other side of that door. What I did was totally within my rights as a legal occupant of that dwelling. If I'd shot them both dead with 12 gauge 00 Buckshot, it would have served them right.
Twas some kind of tragic potty training incident wuddnit, at least that would be my best guess.
I gotta hand it to ya, you really are quite the dream catch, you know, for some kinda wonderfully wacky gal (um, guy:dunno:?) for whom being a statistic has always been their biggest dream, you got that potential is what I'm sayin'.

[Sundrop]

:facepalm: Oh Geeeze! *Bite your tongue, Sunny, just bite your tongue and walk away*

[thejaff]

when you are trying to trade your first editions to feed your family 5 years from now and no one is buying because you no longer have internet i guess i will not have to hear lame comments or try to prove to you what is about to happen because most of you will be dead anyway from society collapsing and your houses are getting raided by starving people with bigger guns than you

[JordyVerrill]

I'm not defending the intruder as being completely innocent in this but neither would I defend the homeowner. She had many different choices she could have made and didn't use any of them.

She could've chosen to put the first round right between the scumbag's eyes, which is the choice I would've made.

[Moderator]

DFTT

[Sepia and Dust]

She could've chosen to put the first round right between the scumbag's eyes, which is the choice I would've made.

From the description of the wounds, it sounds like that was where she was aiming.

[PatInTheHat]

when you are trying to trade your first editions to feed your family 5 years from now and no one is buying because you no longer have internet i guess i will not have to hear lame comments or try to prove to you what is about to happen because most of you will be dead anyway from society collapsing and your houses are getting raided by starving people with bigger guns than you
Which, you either don't believe in periods or you're in the middle of having one:eyebrow:?...take some Midol I.V. push and maybe look into a remedial punctuation class, fill your day, and for the love of therapy keep yo' silly self busy, is what I'm sayin'.
(I swear on my life I did not fornicate that troll:oo:...what:umm:what I say :rolleyes:?)

[Sundrop]

(I swear on my life I did not fornicate that troll:oo:...what:umm:what I say :rolleyes:?)

:rofl: At least not in my prom dress, if you know what's good for ya! ♥

[Patricia A]

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown? 2,363. Is that enough?
The link below keeps a running tally of people who have died at gun point since Sandy Hook.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_t oolbar

By the way we are about due for another massacre.

Born July 18, 2006, Olivia Rose Engle was a joyful child who deserved to giggle more and to have more birthdays. She only had six.

http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s341/silvahalo68/Sandy%20Hook%202012/1355715139690cached_zpsfba8ccb7.jpg

[Lily Sawyer]

I vote we shut down the thread. The trolls have gotten enough food to last them until the next round of serious congressional talks about gun control.

[atomicinchworm]

Seriously, guys, with the firepower available to the United States government can we just all agree that the gun nut in his bolt hole isn't going to be protecting anyone from anything in the unlikely chance of a revolution?

I mean, you can want to change the government and you can hate what is going on now, but if this country revolted not only would the nation's enemies take full advantage, but it would destabilize pretty much everything.

Let's put on our thinking caps, kids.

If you want guns for personal protection, that is fine. No one here is saying you can't. Let's just be intellectually honest with ourselves, eh?

[Patricia A]

Six birthdays are never enough.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/bradylaw

[exzel]

Seriously, guys, with the firepower available to the United States government can we just all agree that the gun nut in his bolt hole isn't going to be protecting anyone from anything in the unlikely chance of a revolution?

Seemed to work for the people of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

[GNTLGNT]

when you are trying to trade your first editions to feed your family 5 years from now and no one is buying because you no longer have internet i guess i will not have to hear lame comments or try to prove to you what is about to happen because most of you will be dead anyway from society collapsing and your houses are getting raided by starving people with bigger guns than you

:2:

[GNTLGNT]

I vote we shut down the thread. The trolls have gotten enough food to last them until the next round of serious congressional talks about gun control.

....yep....the TID(Troll Intelligence Dectector)has seen the IQ level in their posts drop below room temperature...

[Autumn Gust]

when you are trying to trade your first editions to feed your family 5 years from now and no one is buying because you no longer have internet i guess i will not have to hear lame comments or try to prove to you what is about to happen because most of you will be dead anyway from society collapsing and your houses are getting raided by starving people with bigger guns than you

I'm starting to think you're the kind of guy that sees the glass as half-empty...

[kingricefan]

I'm starting to think you're the kind of guy that sees the glass as half-empty...

The glass became half empty after someone put a bullet in it. :dunno:

[Claude]

The point was not missed, it's just the wrong point............ Guns aren't the problem....... The problems go a lot deeper than that in our society......

[Moderator]

Using guns to solve them is the problem.

[Sepia and Dust]

Using guns to solve them is the problem.

Mentally stable people don't really do that, though.

[Moderator]

Somehow I doubt that every person who has shot someone else is mentally unstable but I understand the distinction you're making. It's still my opinion that if they were less accessible, guns would not be among the top go-to solutions for conflict resolution by those who use them for that purpose and they might be forced to find a better way to deal with things that would be less likely to end in lethal results.

[Sepia and Dust]

Somehow I doubt that every person who has shot someone else is mentally unstable but I understand the distinction you're making. It's still my opinion that if they were less accessible, guns would not be among the top go-to solutions for conflict resolution by those who use them for that purpose and they might be forced to find a better way to deal with things that would be less likely to end in lethal results.

The go-to solution would probably become knives, instead, as they were before guns became so common. I'd much rather be shot than cut. In any event, the intent to kill, maim, and brutalize would not change, and crazy people would remain crazy.

The use of guns as conflict resolution isn't (to my mind) anywhere near as ubiquitous as it's being made out to be. I've seen actual shoot-to-kill gunplay about half a dozen times in my rather rough-and-tumble life. Most people never even see it once.

And, in my experience, it's always been under circumstances where the guy who got shot more or less deserved it.

I don't deny that some people have been shot just walking down the street, and I don't deny that some perfectly innocent people have been shot, but I've never seen either happen. Well, I do know one guy who took a bullet while hunting, but it was from another hunter on the other side of the woods who had missed his deer, but that's not really what we're talking about.

I don't think it happens very often, except in the sorts of situations where that's really the only way it can play out.

[Moderator]

I was thinking about gang violence where payback is dealt with by more violence, oftentimes with guns, and in the process far too many innocent lives have been lost from gunshot wounds as well.

[hossenpepper]

Wow!! I didn't know all criminals and such were mentally unstable. That must be why they all get off on temporary insanity, huh?

I tell ya what, along with some damn fine points of the human condition here on the ol' SKMB, you have to all stomach a lot of dumb statements. Mostly when the neocons feel the need to tell us the same crap they have been since the 1780's. We got it, you can all pipe down now. It's still dumb now. The big folks and thinkers are moving forward with or without you.

Please review where a progressive agenda was re-elected last November, as well as a large majority of total congressional votes were cast in favor of said agenda.

You and your old ideas are the minority and will be from now on. Get over it. You can still have a burrito...

[Sepia and Dust]

you have to all stomach a lot of dumb statements.

True. Terms like "Neocon" come to mind.

[hossenpepper]

True. Terms like "Neocon" come to mind.

Perhaps you are unclear what the term means. A neoconservative (or neocon) is the far right extreme of the political spectrum. It implies they take their philosophy back to the original constructionist roots. A typical conservative would not be one of these as they are often more progressive in thinking and just want fiscal responsibility. The ones who take this to indicate a litany of social and moral stances that are puritanical in substance and are therefore unwavering, make it into a faith rather than an ever evolving set of information and evolved reactions to that information.

Now I am not sure why YOU are taking issue with this as that term was used in relation to the OP here and their neocon ideals about guns and also making blanket statements regarding mental instability.

But to sum it up, that is not a dumb term, nor was it incorrectly used. Therefore I give your assessment two thumbs down because I only have two. My alter ego on planet Zorbakkian is giving it 6 thumbs down.

;;D

[Sepia and Dust]

Therefore I give your assessment two thumbs down because I only have two. My alter ego on planet Zorbakkian is giving it 6 thumbs down.


With only minor discomfort, I can give it three "thumbs" down.

[GNTLGNT]

...this whole thing has begun to give me gas...since GK never seems to run out of gas....

[hossenpepper]

With only minor discomfort, I can give it three "thumbs" down.

TOO-SHAY

:okay:

[SeleneM1]

You Americans are nucking futs. I am SOOO glad I'm in Canada. A couple of years ago, someone broke into my workplace while I was on shift (I work nights and the office is in a renovated old house), around 4am. He popped the window open and stepped inside. Being Canadian (we're polite) I said "Hi." He looked at me, mumbled "Sorry, wrong house," and left.

If either of us had had a gun at the time, someone would be dead or severely injured. As it was, I called 911, the cops did a report, and they caught him an hour later. When the cop asked if I was "traumatised" I laughed in his face. I'm sure things would have been A LOT different if there had been guns involved.

We have coyotes and bears here, too. Guess what? Keep the garbage locked up away from the house. No guns required. We have home invaders here, too. Guess what? Your overpriced shiny crap isn't worth dying for, be it yourselves or the person breaking in. No guns required. See a theme here?

We're pragmatic about guns as a consumer good, and we treat them appropriately. We also tax the ever-loving snot out of them. The part of the Second Amendment everyone seems to forget is the "well-regulated" part. And that it was written in mind to have private citizens as a sort of reserve army (as they have in, say Israel) in case the British came back. Guess what? The British haven't been a threat for the last 200 years. STILL no guns required.

[GNTLGNT]

If either of us had had a gun at the time, someone would be dead or severely injured.

...why?....from what you've posted, he did nothing more threatening than a B & E...we "nuts" Americans that are properly trained are NOT going to put someone like that down in a hail of bullets...if they leave on their own accord, when they see your firearm...there's no reason to terminate or wound them...I can't stress this enough, if the offender has NO weapon and you DON'T feel that your life or lives of those you care about or are responsible for, are not in danger-you have NO defensible reason to shoot...so please don't make sweeping assumptions about ALL Americans...some of us actually know when & how to use firearms...

[Sepia and Dust]

You Americans are nucking futs. I am SOOO glad I'm in Canada. A couple of years ago, someone broke into my workplace while I was on shift (I work nights and the office is in a renovated old house), around 4am. He popped the window open and stepped inside. Being Canadian (we're polite) I said "Hi." He looked at me, mumbled "Sorry, wrong house," and left.

If either of us had had a gun at the time, someone would be dead or severely injured. As it was, I called 911, the cops did a report, and they caught him an hour later. When the cop asked if I was "traumatised" I laughed in his face. I'm sure things would have been A LOT different if there had been guns involved.

We have coyotes and bears here, too. Guess what? Keep the garbage locked up away from the house. No guns required. We have home invaders here, too. Guess what? Your overpriced shiny crap isn't worth dying for, be it yourselves or the person breaking in. No guns required. See a theme here?

We're pragmatic about guns as a consumer good, and we treat them appropriately. We also tax the ever-loving snot out of them. The part of the Second Amendment everyone seems to forget is the "well-regulated" part. And that it was written in mind to have private citizens as a sort of reserve army (as they have in, say Israel) in case the British came back. Guess what? The British haven't been a threat for the last 200 years. STILL no guns required.

That was your office, not your home with your kiddies tucked into their beds, supposedly all safe and sound.

I'm glad to hear that you weren't raped.

[Out of Order]

Who bumped this thread? :22_002:

[Sepia and Dust]

Who bumped this thread? :22_002:

SeleneM1, post 121 (http://www.stephenking.com/community/showthread.php/28057-Sometimes-10-rounds-isn-t-enough?p=575406#post575406).

[Out of Order]

I know......I know..............xD

[Haunted]

.

...why?....from what you've posted, he did nothing more threatening than a B & E...we "nuts" Americans that are properly trained are NOT going to put someone like that down in a hail of bullets...if they leave on their own accord, when they see your firearm...there's no reason to terminate or wound them...I can't stress this enough, if the offender has NO weapon and you DON'T feel that your life or lives of those you care about or are responsible for, are not in danger-you have NO defensible reason to shoot...so please don't make sweeping assumptions about ALL Americans...some of us actually know when & how to use firearms...


leave on their own accord, when they see your firearm...there's no reason to terminate or wound them

Very key point, GNTLGNT, nobody wants to take a bullet including the bad guys.

[jimson]

You non-Americans are clucking fueless. You must think we all dodge gunfire on a daily basis

I suppose media sensationalism warps perspective.

I have always lived in two of the most gun friendly states in America. Never shot anyone, been shot, shot at, or even once heard a shot fired in anger.

Despite the incidents that get wall to wall publicity, there is so little chance of you becoming a victim of gun violence, even in the "gunz crazy bloody USA."

You can lower those chances further by not getting involved with drugs and other criminal behavior, love triangles involving unstable people etc.

[Sepia and Dust]

You non-Americans are clucking fueless.

Hey! I have twice as much fue as you, Pal.

[jimson]

Hey! I have twice as much fue as you, Pal. LOL

[Lily Sawyer]

Got foo?

http://fengshuilifemapping.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fudog.jpg

[Sepia and Dust]

Got foo?



Got Cfoolhu....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/H.P._Lovecraft_plaque_w_stuffed_Cthulhu.jpg

[Lily Sawyer]

Got Cfoolhu....

...wow...and it ain't even April 1 yet!

[GNTLGNT]

...well, we need the Foo Fighters then....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQ_3sBZEm0

[Walter Oobleck]

Got foo?

http://fengshuilifemapping.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fudog.jpg

There's room enough there to read between the lions!

[SeleneM1]

That was your office, not your home with your kiddies tucked into their beds, supposedly all safe and sound.

I'm glad to hear that you weren't raped.

Statistically, 85% of rapes are perpetrated by people the victim knows. Guns don't help in that case, either.

As for my home, my front door (due to lousy landlords with a record of not fixing anything) doesn't even SHUT, let alone lock. And I still don't own anything worth dying for. Have at it. I also own a dog, which (even though he's a 15 year old Lab, the friendliest of dogs and he can barely stand up on his own) tends to be a deterrent before the person walks in the door.

And wasn't the point that if someone breaks in, you have to vapourise them, which is why "10 bullets isn't enough"? I'm saying 1 bullet is too freakin' many...One gun is too many.

Melt them all down and build a community centre. Get to know your neighbours, instead of being afraid of them.

[jimson]

Statistically, 85% of rapes are perpetrated by people the victim knows. Guns don't help in that case, either.

As for my home, my front door (due to lousy landlords with a record of not fixing anything) doesn't even SHUT, let alone lock. And I still don't own anything worth dying for. Have at it. I also own a dog, which (even though he's a 15 year old Lab, the friendliest of dogs and he can barely stand up on his own) tends to be a deterrent before the person walks in the door.

And wasn't the point that if someone breaks in, you have to vapourise them, which is why "10 bullets isn't enough"? I'm saying 1 bullet is too freakin' many...One gun is too many.

Melt them all down and build a community centre. Get to know your neighbours, instead of being afraid of them.

Actually many women have indeed used a gun to defend themselves against attackers whom they have known.

Ten rounds may or may not be enough depending on factors such as the caliber, size of the perpetrator and number of assailants. even the thickness of the assailants clothing.

There have been many home invasions carried out by multiple assailants.

In January of 2013, a Georgia woman defended herself and her children against a home invader in the middle of the day with a .38 caliber revolver and she used all 6 shots. He was still standing and even manged to drive away. If he had had an accomplice she and her kids might very well be dead right now.

All I will say is make that choice for yourself, I don't want you making it for me.

I'm not afraid of my neighbors, but I can't know everyone who might come through my neighborhood, and if any of them mean harm to me or my family, I have no intention of singing kumbaya and trying to brotherly love them into better behavior.

I would urge anyone wanting a gun for self defense to take it upon themselves to get training. I have.

[Sepia and Dust]

Statistically, 85% of rapes are perpetrated by people the victim knows. Guns don't help in that case, either.


Well, I'm glad that you weren't 85% raped by somebody you know, then. Or 15% raped by someone you don't.




As for my home, my front door (due to lousy landlords with a record of not fixing anything) doesn't even SHUT, let alone lock. And I still don't own anything worth dying for. Have at it.


Ah, I see. No family.




I also own a dog, which (even though he's a 15 year old Lab, the friendliest of dogs and he can barely stand up on his own) tends to be a deterrent before the person walks in the door.


He tends to be a deterrent? How do you know? Get lots of home invaders running down your driveway, do you?




And wasn't the point that if someone breaks in, you have to vapourise them, which is why "10 bullets isn't enough"?


I agree with that.




I'm saying 1 bullet is too freakin' many...One gun is too many.

Melt them all down and build a community centre. Get to know your neighbours, instead of being afraid of them.


You assume too much.

[Walter Oobleck]

Why should any individual be limited in the amount of kinetic energy they could deliver to an assailant?
The delivery vehicle of that energy is irrelevant.
Punches, kicks, a swung stick, thrown rocks, fired bullets. Is there a difference? I don't think so.
How many want Congress mandating that a potential rape victim can swing only 2 punches or throw
only 4 rocks at an attacker?

Restricted-capacity magazines jeopardizes people's safety. Why are the lives of government employees
valued more than the life of my neighbor, a woman, who was attacked and who could potentially be attacked
again? Where's the fairness in that?

Talk about limiting an attacker's use to ten rounds seems ludicrous. We're willing to accept the possibility
that an assailant fire ten rounds?

And with the unknown numbers of multiple-round magazines available now? When magazines were restricted
in the past, all it did was drive up the price of those magazines.

In the most controlled environment there is, prison, bad people find a way to get their hands on weapons.
And at the same time, apparently airline passengers are...again?...able to bring knives w/small blades aboard
aircraft?

[hossenpepper]

I have always lived in two of the most gun friendly states in America. Never shot anyone, been shot, shot at, or even once heard a shot fired in anger.

Despite the incidents that get wall to wall publicity, there is so little chance of you becoming a victim of gun violence, even in the "gunz crazy bloody USA."


I just hope you realize that while this is certainly an argument that gun ownership legal rights are not a reason to freak out and worry that there will be bullets raining down everywhere, it is also just as strong of an argument that guns aren't really that necessary.

Unless of course you assume that a constant state of fear that someone might have one pervades our American psyches. Then perhaps they are a deterrent to felonious mischief.

[Chuggs]

I think all of this gun law talk is interesting. Most people seem to forget that the people who are "The badguys" are going to have guns no matter what law is passed. They already break the laws that we have, so why would new laws stop them?

Gun training of some kind for those who wish to have one would be a good idea, assuming that it didn't cost extra. If it did cost extra, people would find a cheaper, non-law-abiding way to arm themselves.

No one should need all five rounds or whatever to put down a bad guy, but I'd rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them. After all, bad guys often travel in packs.

As far as the argument about child victims 11, 12, 13 and so on...stop trying to use tragedy to play on my emotions. Most people who would shoot children would have their guns illegally. Not all, I understand, but most. These people are crazy for the most part. CRAZY ! And those who would give guns to people who they know are unstable...well...put two and two together.

I am a gun owner, have been my whole life, and am a former United States Marine as well as a former Detention Officer. I have two children of my own, and I will protect them the way I see fit. No one can tell me other wise. Of course, I know what I'm doing with or without a gun in my hand, but I have also seen those who can't be stopped so easily with or without a gun. Better safe than sorry. That said, any one who wants to own a gun has the personal responsibility (I know, many have forgotten what personal responsibilty is; they want someone to tell them what to do and how to live, etc.) to learn how to use the weapon responsibly.

But hey, we could banter on and on until the world ended, and all that would be accomplished is a bunch of red faces.

Argue with me if you wish, I don't mind at all. After all, we all have that freedom. I've said what I have to say for now, however, so don't expect a retort. But know, though many of us dissagree on many things, I love you all and wish you all nothing but peace and love. Live and let live, Love and let love.

God bless us all.

[jimson]

I just hope you realize that while this is certainly an argument that gun ownership legal rights are not a reason to freak out and worry that there will be bullets raining down everywhere, it is also just as strong of an argument that guns aren't really that necessary.

Unless of course you assume that a constant state of fear that someone might have one pervades our American psyches. Then perhaps they are a deterrent to felonious mischief.


That's just the thing. What is really necessary? Food water and shelter. I'm well aware that my gun is neither likely to be misused against me or my family or against an intruder, but most likely to do nothing, but give me piece of mind that in the oft chance I need it,I'll have it.

We generally have fire insurance when house fires are incredibly rare.

[hossenpepper]

I think guns and insurance should have a refund clause. Since they are both essentially born of paranoia based upon extremely rare events and neither can actually stop an event where they will be needed, they are very similar.

Like Chris Rock said, it/they should be called "In case sh!t happens. If sh!t don't happen, shouldn't I get my money back?"

[jimson]

I think guns and insurance should have a refund clause. Since they are both essentially born of paranoia based upon extremely rare events and neither can actually stop an event where they will be needed, they are very similar.

What are you talking about? People have used firearms to stop attacks millions of time.

[hossenpepper]

What are you talking about? People have used firearms to stop attacks millions of time.

I should have added "...from occurring.", so consider yourself a gold star paper student for specificity. You get an "F" for cognition of context, however. As an obviously butthurt lover of all things that go boom, you should be able to understand that.

I liked your other screen name better, BTW.

[Lily Sawyer]

...any one who wants to own a gun has the personal responsibility (I know, many have forgotten what personal responsibilty is; they want someone to tell them what to do and how to live, etc.) to learn how to use the weapon responsibly.

Would you be in favor of a federally-mandated gun safety course for future and current gun-owners, to prove they're responsible? One that is endorsed by the NRA? One that is also mandatory for NRA membership?

- Your point is a good one. The thing is, there seem to be an awful lot of current gun owners who aren't willing to step up to the plate to prove they're responsible, even though they still have the constitutionally-secured right to own firearms. They scream and holler about how worried they are that their rights will be taken away from them, yet appear to be unwilling to compromise with people (like me) who want tighter restrictions on guns in the U.S. I'd definitely be willing to consider voting in new laws that protect gun ownership in general *and* ensure that gun owners must prove they're responsible and understand their state's gun laws, before they can receive their gun license.

But....the way politics are shaking down in the U.S. right now, it's highly likely that no Republican or Libertarian will become President any time soon, and that both houses of Congress will become Democrat, anti-gun, pro-restriction majorities. If compromise isn't reached in the near future, *with* NRA endorsement, I'd be willing to bet that a measure to repeal the Second Amendment entirely will become reality. Gun owners are still a minority in the U.S. - and that means that while there are responsible people like you (and some others here on the Board), the sane-but-stupid gun owners will have a rude awakening when more anti-gun members of Congress gain seats. Go here and read the Ownership section statistics: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

- If a conservative senator like Rob Portman can change his views on gay marriage, it stands to reason that others can do the same regarding their views on gun ownership in the U.S. (I predict more conservatives in Congress will ultimately change their views and help pass a federal law recognizing gay marriage in the U.S., but that's another topic altogether.) The point is, a repeal of the Second Amendment can happen. If conservatives haven't learned anything, they should review the lessons from the passage of the Civil Rights Act, least of which is never say never.

Thank you for your service to the U.S. It's heroes like you who can help change gun responsibility in the U.S.

[Sepia and Dust]

The thing is, there seem to be an awful lot of current gun owners who aren't willing to step up to the plate to prove they're responsible, even though they still have the constitutionally-secured right to own firearms.


That's the thing about a right--you don't have to prove that you're responsible. To remove the right from a citizen, the onus is on the government to prove that he is irresponsible.




...I'd be willing to bet that a measure to repeal the Second Amendment entirely will become reality. Gun owners are still a minority in the U.S.


That's never going to happen. Repealing an amendment is ridiculously hard, and repealing anything from the Bill of Rights may as well be an impossibility.

[Lily Sawyer]

...repealing anything from the Bill of Rights may as well be an impossibility.

"May" is the operative word in that phrase. Never say never.

[hossenpepper]

...the way politics are shaking down in the U.S. right now, it's highly likely that no Republican or Libertarian will become President any time soon, and that both houses of Congress will become Democrat, anti-gun, pro-restriction majorities. If compromise isn't reached in the near future, *with* NRA endorsement, I'd be willing to bet that a measure to repeal the Second Amendment entirely will become reality.

I get where you're coming from on this Lily, but that isn't going to happen and I am certainly not in favor of that myself. I don't demonize those who do feel that way, though.

I will also continue to reject the gun advocacy side's supposition that nothing else can or should be done regarding this issue.

[Sepia and Dust]

"May" is the operative word in that phrase. Never say never.

Then I'll simply say it outright--it is impossible. Conservative politicians may occassionally change their stance on an issue or go against the party line, but any politician in a conservative state who advocates repealing the second amendment will be ousted by the people of that state, and damn quick.

[jimson]

I should have added "...from occurring.", so consider yourself a gold star paper student for specificity. You get an "F" for cognition of context, however. As an obviously butthurt lover of all things that go boom, you should be able to understand that.

I liked your other screen name better, BTW.

Why the ugliness? I wasn't disrespectful.

How is stopping an attack, not stopping it from occurring?

This is and has been my only screen name here, so you deserve an "F" for that assuming I have a shade account.

[Lily Sawyer]

Repeal of the Second Amendment isn't impossible, not when conservative parties continue to alienate voters. The conservative states may have large populations of pro-gun voters but they're still fewer in total than the voters in states where tighter restrictions are favored.

My point with the above post is that when pro-gun voters and advocates don't compromise on gun laws, their reps and senators will be replaced by ones who will make up a two-thirds vote possibility of a repeal - if no solutions can be achieved.

I'm not saying there aren't solutions to reducing the awful American death-by-gun statistics. I'm saying that responsible gun owners need to wake up and smell a repeal long before it happens. Peer pressure is a mighty force to be reckoned with.

[hossenpepper]

Why the ugliness? I wasn't disrespectful.

How is stopping an attack, not stopping it from occurring?

This is and has been my only screen name here, so you deserve an "F" for that assuming I have a shade account.

Was that ugly? Oh come now. If it was so bad, shoot me. Oh wait, forget I said that.

Is that analogy really so difficult to get? If you're already being attacked, you may be able to truncate it, but not stop if from happening in the first place. There have probably been people who wanted to rob their friend but said "That guy has guns, so forget it" but I highly doubt there is a national "I changed my mind" database that would ever prove it. I am talking about the oft cited reason we all need guns... the random attack from nowhere. I even provided (in this thread or possibly another on this subject) a story regarding this where a guy had carried out over 40 rape/home invasions in a 6 month period in perhaps the most heavily armed state, Oklahoma. What stopped him? Well, it wasn't the 36 of 40 victims that had guns but it did them no good (against an attacker who didn't use a gun). It was an anonymous tip. The point is, the presence of a gun (unless very overtly advertised) does nothing to stop an attacker who hasn't started the attack yet.

To the other comment, if you are not Mr. 1799, then I apologize. Unfortunately, you are just purporting the same ideas and write with the same style. You also seem to be in equal disbelief that someone might want guns restricted or outlawed. I don't agree with banning, but opinions vary in the US quite a bit.

[hossenpepper]

My point with the above post is that when pro-gun voters and advocates don't compromise on gun laws, their reps and senators will be replaced by ones who will make up a two-thirds vote possibility of a repeal - if no solutions can be achieved.

Well you kind of point out the problem with this ever actually happening by mentioning the 2/3 needed. That could happen, but getting 3/4 of the States to agree will never happen. Look at the red/blue split on the map. The more local governments are, the more conservative they tend to be.

[Sepia and Dust]

Repeal of the Second Amendment isn't impossible, not when conservative parties continue to alienate voters. The conservative states may have large populations of pro-gun voters but they're still fewer in total than the voters in states where tighter restrictions are favored.

My point with the above post is that when pro-gun voters and advocates don't compromise on gun laws, their reps and senators will be replaced by ones who will make up a two-thirds vote possibility of a repeal - if no solutions can be achieved.

I'm not saying there aren't solutions to reducing the awful American death-by-gun statistics. I'm saying that responsible gun owners need to wake up and smell a repeal long before it happens. Peer pressure isa mighty force to be reckoned with.


This is how to repeal an amendment:




The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.



So, just to propose a repeal, you need either 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures to approve. Then, to actually repeal it, you need either 3/4 of the state legislatures or 3/4 of the conventions called by the various states to ratify the repeal.

It is only the first part--proposing an amendment or a repeal--that is affected by population. For everything else, South Dakota and Montana have just as much voting power as California and New York.

Three-fourths of the state legislatures will never, ever repeal the second amendment.

[jimson]

Repeal of the Second Amendment isn't impossible, not when conservative parties continue to alienate voters. The conservative states may have large populations of pro-gun voters but they're still fewer in total than the voters in states where tighter restrictions are favored.

My point with the above post is that when pro-gun voters and advocates don't compromise on gun laws, their reps and senators will be replaced by ones who will make up a two-thirds vote possibility of a repeal - if no solutions can be achieved.

I'm not saying there aren't solutions to reducing the awful American death-by-gun statistics. I'm saying that responsible gun owners need to wake up and smell a repeal long before it happens. Peer pressure isa mighty force to be reckoned with.

You assume that the Republican party is dead. People assumed that after the 2008 elections and Democrats got trounced in 2010.

The senate has already dropped the assault weapons ban because they couldn't even get enough Democrat support for it.

Just because I don't support a law banning currently legal firearms, doesn't mean that I don't support other efforts to improve the situation, but as long as that is the main proposal in any gun control push, I will fiercely oppose their efforts.

Hopefully the magazine restriction will likewise be defeated and then maybe they can work on some other proposals that might have a chance of succeeding.

[Moderator]

There has been a precedent when the 18th amendment for the ban on alcohol was repealed by the 21st amendment. Repealing the second amendment would not necessarily ban guns--the sense of entitlement to own them just would not be protected as it is now.

[Moderator]

Hopefully more people will come to the realization that perpetuating the culture of guns is not what makes us safe and finally concede that it SHOULD at least be a part of the discussion instead of pointing fingers at all of the other contributing factors that lead up to GUNS being used for whatever the reason.

[Sepia and Dust]

Hopefully more people will come to the realization that perpetuating the culture of guns is not what makes us safe and finally concede that it SHOULD at least be a part of the discussion instead of pointing fingers at all of the other contributing factors that lead up to GUNS being used for whatever the reason.

You're assuming that there is a gun culture in the US. I don't believe there is one, as the term is generally used. Are there a lot of guns in America? Yes. Are they routinely pulled out to settle disputes? No.

What you call contributing factors I call the cause of the pointless violence that occurs--few or no treatment options for the mentally unstable, rampant drug use, and basic human stupidity.

[jimson]

Was that ugly? Oh come now. If it was so bad, shoot me. Oh wait, forget I said that.

Is that analogy really so difficult to get? If you're already being attacked, you may be able to truncate it, but not stop if from happening in the first place. There have probably been people who wanted to rob their friend but said "That guy has guns, so forget it" but I highly doubt there is a national "I changed my mind" database that would ever prove it. I am talking about the oft cited reason we all need guns... the random attack from nowhere. I even provided (in this thread or possibly another on this subject) a story regarding this where a guy had carried out over 40 rape/home invasions in a 6 month period in perhaps the most heavily armed state, Oklahoma. What stopped him? Well, it wasn't the 36 of 40 victims that had guns but it did them no good (against an attacker who didn't use a gun). It was an anonymous tip. The point is, the presence of a gun (unless very overtly advertised) does nothing to stop an attacker who hasn't started the attack yet.

To the other comment, if you are not Mr. 1799, then I apologize. Unfortunately, you are just purporting the same ideas and write with the same style. You also seem to be in equal disbelief that someone might want guns restricted or outlawed. I don't agree with banning, but opinions vary in the US quite a bit.

Well really, who likes to be referred to with the term "butthurt"?

It wasn't particularly clear to me that you were referring to the presence of guns as a deterrent to any attempt of a crime, but then again, there are studies that show that criminals do often fear armed citizens and that may impact their choice of victim, despite anecdotal evidence that you cite.

Is there evidence that 36 out of 40 of the specific Oklahoma victims were gun owners or is this an extrapolation?

No, I'm not in disbelief that others might want guns restricted or outlawed, we already have restrictions and just because I don't believe in further bans on ownership by law abiding citizens, doesn't mean that I don't see possible merit in other proposals, like improvements in the NCIS, secure storage proposals, increased penalties for stolen gun trafficking, etc, but if people insist on labeling me as some no compromise extremist because I refuse to capitulate to any gun bans, then so be it.

[Moderator]

You're assuming that there is a gun culture in the US. I don't believe there is one, as the term is generally used. Are there a lot of guns in America? Yes. Are they routinely pulled out to settle disputes? No.

What you call contributing factors I call the cause of the pointless violence that occurs--few or no treatment options for the mentally unstable, rampant drug use, and basic human stupidity.

It may be in what you define as a gun "culture". Our definitions may be very different but for me that so many people believe that it is necessary to have a gun or they are putting their and their family's lives in danger without having any other reason for having them, e.g. those whose work or daily lives expose them to that kind of danger, living in a neighborhood where gun violence is a proven fact, is what I define as a gun culture rather than a reality. That there is the proliferation of guns in this country that are owned for reasons other than immediate threat of danger is a gun culture. I don't care if they're pulled out or not, just that so many people don't think twice about there being something wrong with that and accepting it as a way of life--what's the big deal?, is a gun culture.

I've said before and will say again that I have absolutely no problems with the other issues being dealt with and MAYBE this will be a catalyst for finally doing it but I'm not overly optimistic in the don't spend any money on "those" people atmosphere we currently have. But you can't have it both ways--point the finger at the other issues and say those are the things that need to be fixed without addressing that as part of that we need to make sure that guns are not as easy to obtain as they currently are--both illegally and legally.

[Sepia and Dust]

There is not one thing in this world wrong with owning guns. There is nothing wrong with shooting guns. The number of guns in this country is not a problem.

I think that people are, as they are wont to do, looking for an easy solution to very complex societal ( ;) ) problems. Latching onto firearms as some sort of bogeyman won't fix anything--crazy people will still be crazy, evil people will still be evil, criminals will still be criminals.

Without guns, will the bodycount be lower when the crazies, the evil, and the criminals decide to hurt someone? I don't know--McVeigh blew up a federal building, Klebold and Harris brought bombs into Columbine High School, and Kehoe blew up a school. Who can say?

It's all academic, anyway--guns and the second amendment are here to stay.

[Lily Sawyer]

The U.S. *is* a gun culture. It exists in our entertainment, history, wars, and even our language.

Trigger-happy; flash-in-the-pan; fire away; straight shooter; hair-trigger temper; shooting off at the mouth; have gun, will travel.....and on and on and on.

[jimson]

There seems to be an anti gun culture as well in that there are some that see no value in recreational shooting or collecting and automatically assume that anyone who owns a gun is putting their and their families life in danger without considering that they may be trained, mentally stable, no history of domestic violence or association with criminal element and practice secure storage.
You just can't discount all other aspects that influence the number of gun related injuries and focus only on their mere presence.

Sure, you can say that people with a gun in their house are X number of times more likely to be injured by a gun than those who don't, but you can also say that peanut butter is dangerous because peanut butter eaters are more likely to die than non peanut butter eaters but that is only because a portion of the population will have an allergic reaction to peanut butter.

For those without other risk factors the danger is not there.

It shouldn't be difficult for the law abiding to get a gun. It should be impossible for criminals or the unstable to get one.

I guess some people think the former is impossible with the latter.

However, I think that many who are part of the anti-gun culture are so derisive and hateful to law abiding gun owners, they don't make any distinction.

[Sepia and Dust]

The U.S. *is* a gun culture. It exists in our entertainment, history, wars, and even our language.

Trigger-happy; flash-in-the-pan; fire away; straight shooter; hair-trigger temper; shooting off at the mouth; have gun, will travel.....and on and on and on.

OK. How many people do you know who have been shot?

[Lily Sawyer]

OK. How many people do you know who have been shot?

I know
two people who've been shot (both were innocent by-standers)
five people who were held at gunpoint (one was kidnapped).

[Sepia and Dust]

I know
two people who've been shot (both were innocent by-standers)
five people who were held at gunpoint (one was kidnapped).

Let's include having guns held on them and go with seven, then.

How many people can you claim to know--the people you've gone to school with, worked with, partied with, and are related to? Many hundreds?

I suspect that yours is an extreme example, but even that has only 1% to 2% of the people you know having a bad experience with guns.

[jimson]

I know
two people who've been shot (both were innocent by-standers)
five people who were held at gunpoint (one was kidnapped).

Really? Where do you live? I don't know any victims of gun violence. I guess my gun crazy location is safer than yours LOL

[kingricefan]

Let's include having guns held on them and go with seven, then.

How many people can you claim to know--the people you've gone to school with, worked with, partied with, and are related to? Many hundreds?

I suspect that yours is an extreme example, but even that has only 1% to 2% of the people you know having a bad experience with guns.

Maybe so but I don't want to be in the 1-2% who have a gun pointed at them nor do I want an innocent child at school to have one pointed at them.

[Sepia and Dust]

Maybe so but I don't want to be in the 1-2% who have a gun pointed at them nor do I want an innocent child at school to have one pointed at them.

Nobody does.

Treat the unstable, lock away the evil, and prosecute the criminal, and guns won't be pointed at anybody.

Absolutely ban every single gun in all of creation, and the unstable, the evil, and the criminal will still find a way to shoot people.

[Lily Sawyer]

Nobody does.

Treat the unstable, lock away the evil, and prosecute the criminal, and guns won't be pointed at anybody.

Absolutely ban every single gun in all of creation, and the unstable, the evil, and the criminal will still find a way to shoot people.

Seize all firearms coming in to the U.S., make it illegal for them to be owned by private citizens, and there won't be guns used by the criminally insane or irresponsible parents who allow their unstable kids access to guns or gang members in drive-bys or citizens without a badge allowing them to carry a firearm.

[Sepia and Dust]

Seize all firearms coming in to the U.S., make it illegal for them to be owned by private citizens, and there won't be guns used by the criminally insane or irresponsible parents who allow their unstable kids access to guns or gang members in drive-bys or citizens without a badge allowing them to carry a firearm.

You're just going to have to get used to the idea that that's never going to happen.

[Lily Sawyer]

You're just going to have to get used to the idea that that's never going to happen.

Never. I don't believe that ferreting out the mentally unstable will stop shooting sprees any more than I think mentally unstable folks will get medical treatment that they need. It's a great idea to implement, I'm for it, but I don't think that's the only answer to lowering the number of awful gun tragedies in the U.S. Chuggs is right: there needs to be a more pro-active approach that gun owners take towards being responsible about guns, but in order for it to work, they have to all be on the bus with tickets. They have to be the ones who teach their kids and draw lines in the sand with their stoopid "yee-haw" neighbors (not my word; Mr. King's description) who want to shoot guns just to shoot them - never mind where the bullets fall...and I simply don't see that kind of grassroots movement happening among gun owners in the U.S. They're not putting pressure on their conservative reps (who *they* voted for!) to keep negotiations ongoing and productive regarding preventative measures against future Sandy Hooks and Virginia Techs.

[Sepia and Dust]

Never. I don't believe that ferreting out the mentally unstable will stop shooting sprees any more than I think mentally unstable folks will get medical treatment that they need. It's a great idea to implement, I'm for it, but I don't think that's the only answer to lowering the number of awful gun tragedies in the U.S. Chuggs is right: there needs to be a more pro-active approach that gun owners take towards being responsible about guns, but in order for it to work, they have to all be on the bus with tickets. They have to be the ones who teach their kids and draw lines in the sand with their stoopid "yee-haw" neighbors (not my word; Mr. King's description) who want to shoot guns just to shoot them - never mind where the bullets fall...and I simply don't see that kind of grassroots movement happening among gun owners in the U.S. They're not putting pressure on their conservative reps (who *they* voted for!) to keep negotiations ongoing and productive regarding preventative measures against future Sandy Hooks and Virginia Techs.

Then you must not have been there when my daddy (a Reagan man!) taught me how to safely shoot, and you weren't there when I taught my niece and nephew. You weren't around when my twelve-year-old's uncle called off the day's bird hunt because the boy made a "shooting noise" while holding an unloaded shotgun, and you are evidently not aware of the hunter safety course that the boy was required to take before he was allowed to get a hunting license.

The grassroots movement you want to see has been going on for at least a century--learn how to safely use a gun, and don't let bad people have one.

Yes, there are chinks in the process, and those holes need to be filled in. Soon.

But these screeds about seizing all the guns and repealing the second amendment and making it a felony to own an unlicensed firearm aren't doing anything to remedy the problems.

[Lily Sawyer]

The grassroots movement you want to see has been going on for at least a century--learn how to safely use a gun, and don't let bad people have one.

Then why has that same grassroots movement not helped with gun tragedies? They're not being avoided; their occurrences just keep rising in numbers.

[Sepia and Dust]

Then why has that same grassroots movement not helped with gun tragedies? They're not being avoided; their occurrences just keep rising in numbers.

The Sandy Hook shooter was insane. He got the guns from his insane mother. Neither of those people should have ever been able to possess a gun, and everybody--conservatives and liberals, alike--are trying to find a way to make sure that people like them can't get guns. The two parties may disagree on how to best implement such a process, but nobody wants crazy people to be armed.

[jimson]

Seize all firearms coming in to the U.S., make it illegal for them to be owned by private citizens, and there won't be guns used by the criminally insane or irresponsible parents who allow their unstable kids access to guns or gang members in drive-bys or citizens without a badge allowing them to carry a firearm.

Only after you send Stormtroopers door to door to confiscate the nearly 300 million already out there. How do you think that's going to go down in rural America? Do you really want a civil war? Don't expect factions of the military not to realign, once American citizens are being killed by their own government. Then both sides will have more than semi auto rifles to kill each other with.

[hossenpepper]

Well really, who likes to be referred to with the term "butthurt"?

Oh now, it's the vernacular of the day. It indicates two things: don't take these discussions too awfully seriously and also that I am hip and cool.



It wasn't particularly clear to me that you were referring to the presence of guns as a deterrent to any attempt of a crime, but then again, there are studies that show that criminals do often fear armed citizens and that may impact their choice of victim, despite anecdotal evidence that you cite.


Fair enough, but that is just as anecdotal because what they are studying in that context is an anecdote: "Do you fear someone may have a gun?". Sure, criminals do have some fear of the life they choose to pursue as it isn't exactly a safe and pleasant profession to be a criminal of any sort. But so does the average citizen who is aware of these matters (for whatever reason) know that it is best to assume someone may have a gun and not start a physical confrontation.



Is there evidence that 36 out of 40 of the specific Oklahoma victims were gun owners or is this an extrapolation?


Yes. This was from the interviews and investigation. This was specifically discussed because the local TV news made a big to do that maybe people should have guns to protect themselves, etc. The local newspaper however later showed that 36 of the 40 victims had guns somewhere in their house, etc. but due to the technique and timing the assailant used, they could, not get to them to be of any use. Which is a point I always make with the random attacker scenario need for guns. SK also pointed this out in the essay, citing "In Cold Blood" as a prime example. The archives of the story I presented are not online anywhere I could find as this was 30+ years ago.


No, I'm not in disbelief that others might want guns restricted or outlawed, we already have restrictions and just because I don't believe in further bans on ownership by law abiding citizens, doesn't mean that I don't see possible merit in other proposals, like improvements in the NCIS, secure storage proposals, increased penalties for stolen gun trafficking, etc, but if people insist on labeling me as some no compromise extremist because I refuse to capitulate to any gun bans, then so be it.

Here is the issue: your last statement. Speaking in absolutes. When you do that, be liberal or conservative... you instantly turn the debate off. I know that many Americans are raised to think this is a sign of strength and character to not waver. I can tell you from my life experience, the opposite is true. The ability to evolve and adapt is what indicates strength.

If something needs to be banned to make a difference, then so be it. But we can't even begin to analyze if that would work because we have folks who are so rigid. It's as if they believe they have already thought of it in every single way and no human could possibly have an idea that shows why a ban, etc., is the best idea. I am not saying it is. I am saying it has to be debated.

When you start from a position of "I will never back down and all your ideas are invalid" well... let's just say that isn't debate posture.

[jimson]

Oh now, it's the vernacular of the day. It indicates two things: don't take these discussions too awfully seriously and also that I am hip and cool.



Fair enough, but that is just as anecdotal because what they are studying in that context is an anecdote: "Do you fear someone may have a gun?". Sure, criminals do have some fear of the life they choose to pursue as it isn't exactly a safe and pleasant profession to be a criminal of any sort. But so does the average citizen who is aware of these matters (for whatever reason) know that it is best to assume someone may have a gun and not start a physical confrontation.



Yes. This was from the interviews and investigation. This was specifically discussed because the local TV news made a big to do that maybe people should have guns to protect themselves, etc. The local newspaper however later showed that 36 of the 40 victims had guns somewhere in their house, etc. but due to the technique and timing the assailant used, they could, not get to them to be of any use. Which is a point I always make with the random attacker scenario need for guns. SK also pointed this out in the essay, citing "In Cold Blood" as a prime example. The archives of the story I presented are not online anywhere I could find as this was 30+ years ago.



Here is the issue: your last statement. Speaking in absolutes. When you do that, be liberal or conservative... you instantly turn the debate off. I know that many Americans are raised to think this is a sign of strength and character to not waver. I can tell you from my life experience, the opposite is true. The ability to evolve and adapt is what indicates strength.

If something needs to be banned to make a difference, then so be it. But we can't even begin to analyze if that would work because we have folks who are so rigid. It's as if they believe they have already thought of it in every single way and no human could possibly have an idea that shows why a ban, etc., is the best idea. I am not saying it is. I am saying it has to be debated.

When you start from a position of "I will never back down and all your ideas are invalid" well... let's just say that isn't debate posture.

It's been debated ad nauseum. I have stated many times what I support as far as efforts to reduce gun violence. The semi auto ban just isn't one of them.

[Sepia and Dust]

Only after you send Stormtroopers door to door to confiscate the nearly 300 million already out there. How do you think that's going to go down in rural America? Do you really want a civil war? Don't expect factions of the military not to realign, once American citizens are being killed by their own government. Then both sides will have more than semi auto rifles to kill each other with.

These hypothetical civil war screeds aren't doing any good, either.

[jimson]

These hypothetical civil war screeds aren't doing any good, either. OK, but when someone poses a radical idea like full confiscation of all firearms, one might want to consider a possible consequence.

[Lily Sawyer]

The Sandy Hook shooter was insane. He got the guns from his insane mother. Neither of those people should have ever been able to possess a gun, and everybody--conservatives and liberals, alike--are trying to find a way to make sure that people like them can't get guns. The two parties may disagree on how to best implement such a process, but nobody wants crazy people to be armed.

Everyone agrees that all the perps in all the mass shootings were insane. However, there are more holes in the mental health net in the U.S. through which unstable and certifiables can fall, than there are links in the Responsible Blanket that you refer to. No one can convince me that the number of mass shootings won't drop if tighter restrictions on guns themselves, be they in the form of taxes, mandatory longer wait periods, bans on certain kinds of firearms, or limits on how much ammo a private citizen can by, are enacted. It's not just a solution comprised of mental health treatment and background checks for all gun buyers; it's a combination of those two factors *and* more restrictions on weapons, magazines, and ammunition.

[hossenpepper]

It's not just a solution comprised of mental health treatment and background checks for all gun buyers; it's a combination of those two factors *and* more restrictions on weapons, magazines, and ammunition.

You mean a... ***gulp*** ...compromised solution? Holy hell that is revolutionary!!!

Maybe raising taxes for a bit while cutting spending would end the budget issue more quickly than just cutting spending, too?

Holy sh!tballs, Batman!

It's like that Obama guy is smart or something since he has been saying these things all along...

[Lily Sawyer]

OK, but when someone poses a radical idea like full confiscation of all firearms, one might want to consider a possible consequence.

When firearms continue to be abused like they are in current U.S. society, then punitive measures need to be installed: more Customs agents on the job, background checks that a gun buyer must pay for themselves, limits on magazine capacities, bans on assault guns, higher number of trained law enforcement on the streets dealing with gangs.

Use your peer pressure as a so-called responsible gun owner to straighten out the ijits who stand to mess it all up for you and your rights. Consequences, consequences.

[Sepia and Dust]

When firearms continue to be abused like they are in current U.S. society, then punitive measures need to be installed: more Customs agents on the job, background checks that a gun buyer must pay for themselves, limits on magazine capacities, bans on assault guns, higher number of trained law enforcement on the streets dealing with gangs.

Use your peer pressure as a so-called responsible gun owner to straighten out the ijits who stand to mess it all up for you and your rights. Consequences, consequences.

Weren't you just saying "Ban all guns, all the time, period," or was that someone else?

[Lily Sawyer]

Weren't you just saying "Ban all guns, all the time, period," or was that someone else?

Absolutely! But I also know how to compromise. Backing off from getting what only *I* would like to see done will get me further in the long run.
I believe there are plenty of responsible gun owners in the U.S. You're one of them.
But I think that unless you guys start putting pressure on your reps to hire more Customs agents, law enforcement, and mental health professionals to treat folks with faulty wiring, what has happened in the last decade will happen again, and again, and again. Drive-bys, mass shootings, irresponsible parents lending their unstable kid a gun for a "fun" camping trip, gun smuggling, children coming upon guns that have been carelessly left out while loaded....you name it.

[Sepia and Dust]

He got a 32 gun
in his pocket for fun,
he got a razor
in his shoe

[hossenpepper]

Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

Its a Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't no good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole

[Sundrop]

Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

Its a Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't no good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole

Awwww, now you're taking me back to my Southern redneck roots...... gotta go find my old Skynyrd CDs and get myself a fix of good ol' swamp music ♥

[GNTLGNT]

Seize all firearms coming in to the U.S., make it illegal for them to be owned by private citizens, and there won't be guns used by the criminally insane or irresponsible parents who allow their unstable kids access to guns or gang members in drive-bys or citizens without a badge allowing them to carry a firearm.

...I understand the passion honey...but a black market or underground store of firearms will ALWAYS be available to those want them bad enough....it might curb some violence, but overall I think would be statistically irrelevant...the lure of power/money is to good for some to pass up...and even IF all guns would suddenly disappear, we got by with clubs, bows and swords for a long time...

[jcj1sbcglobal]

I think Stephen King was right in his Kindle Single Guns where he said there does not appear to be a middle ground on this issue. Judging from the comments on the wife emptying her handgun on an intruder, hitting him once and causing him to flee, it appears that some argue this is proof she needed a larger clip while others argue the opposite. I don't think it is particularly relevant to the point whether large ammunition clips should be banned.

[hossenpepper]

I think Stephen King was right in his Kindle Single Guns where he said there does not appear to be a middle ground on this issue. Judging from the comments on the wife emptying her handgun on an intruder, hitting him once and causing him to flee, it appears that some argue this is proof she needed a larger clip while others argue the opposite. I don't think it is particularly relevant to the point whether large ammunition clips should be banned.

Careful, that sounds like logical talk. You might get shot for that...

[Chuggs]

I think Stephen King was right in his Kindle Single Guns where he said there does not appear to be a middle ground on this issue. Judging from the comments on the wife emptying her handgun on an intruder, hitting him once and causing him to flee, it appears that some argue this is proof she needed a larger clip while others argue the opposite. I don't think it is particularly relevant to the point whether large ammunition clips should be banned.
The answer probably does dwell somewhere in the middle, but likely will never be found. I don't know...restriciton of rights is a slippery slope. Crazy days. All in all, I'd say your probably right.

[hossenpepper]

The answer probably does dwell somewhere in the middle, but likely will never be found. I don't know...restriciton of rights is a slippery slope. Crazy days. All in all, I'd say your probably right.

I think it's more logical to say there really isn't an answer as such, except compromise.

[Winbear]

Out of all the idiotic things that I have heard about gun control legislation or victim disarmament as I like to call it, the idea of limiting gun magazines to ten rounds really takes the cake. Simply limiting the amount of rounds a gun can carry is not going to stop psychos from killing people. I hear people tell me that limiting the rounds will allow people to rush the gunmen. Not that this scenario is impossible, but considering that there have been several shootings where the gunman was able to reload or switch to multiple firearms in a short amount of time, I don't think limiting the amount of bullets in a gun is going to make a difference. That's assuming that a murderous psychopath is going to obey the law and not buy illegal magazines that have more then ten rounds. For those who ask "why does anybody need more then ten rounds", I can tell that they know very little about shooting under stress. Shooting under stress is an entirely different ball game then shooting at stationary targets that aren't going to shoot back. There are forms of training that you can get for stress shooting, but that's assuming that you have the time and money to get it. Even then, do you still want to have a gun that a) holds the fewest amount of bullets b) holds only one shot c) holds the largest amount of bullets possible ? Also, knowing the way the victim disarmament crowd thinks, I don't think they will ever be satisfied with limiting guns to just ten rounds.

[Sepia and Dust]

For those who ask "why does anybody need more then ten rounds", I can tell that they know very little about shooting under stress.

In the interest of public safety, I don't want you shooting too much under stress. Better for you die in a home invasion than for you to accidentally kill half a dozen of your neighbors with your missed shots.

[Out of Order]

Nothing to see here folks..............move along.............

[Sepia and Dust]

OH! Do not look up Google Images for "Winbear"... : shudder :

[Winbear]

Winbear was the protagonist in L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach novel. Winbear is police officer living in a dimension with a tyrannical government, when he discovers a portal to another dimension where there is a truly free society.

[Winbear]

In the interest of public safety, I don't want you shooting too much under stress. Better for you die in a home invasion than for you to accidentally kill half a dozen of your neighbors with your missed shots. Really? That's your best response? Instead of trying to actually argue with any of my points you resort to making statements that are both arrogant and childish. It's no wonder that your side is losing.

[Winbear]

Nothing to see here folks..............move along.............
Also proving my point of why your side is losing more and more ground every day.

[Moderator]

The ones who are losing are the victims who have lost their lives as a result of being shot and their families who have to live with that loss every day.

[Winbear]

Okay, I saw the Google image and your right that is bad. It's too bad the name of my favorite protagonist has to be associated with something so disgusting.

[Winbear]

The ones who are losing are the victims who have lost their lives as a result of being shot and their families who have to live with that loss every day. Really? You can actually prove that any gun law would have actually saved their lives?

[Moderator]

The world is made up of many different opinions and you are certainly entitled to yours which, by the way, many people would find equally offensive and indefensible. You have said nothing that has not been said before in many threads here and the responses you will get are not likely to be any different. Do you have something new to add to the discussion other than to voice your disagreement with his views?

[atomicinchworm]

Out of the 40000 people who were killed by guns last year, roughly 250 of them were justifiable homicides.

That is a very small percentage of a big problem that is being ignored.

[Moderator]

Really? You can actually prove that any gun law would have actually saved their lives?

No more than you can. What we can prove is that a gun/bullet took it.

[Winbear]

My opinion is based largely on facts that I have gathered over years of research, which apparently offends people on this board to the point to where they can't even form a coherent argument and have to resort to childish behavior. Silly me, I thought it was possible to have more then a one-way discussion, where everybody agrees with King's opinion. Of course not. Anybody who has a different opinion then King must be belittled, trolled or shouted down. Grow up guys.

[Moderator]

My opinion is based largely on facts that I have gathered over years of research, which apparently offends people on this board to the point to where they can't even form a coherent argument and have to resort to childish behavior. Silly me, I thought it was possible to have more then a one-way discussion, where everybody agrees with King's opinion. Of course not. Anybody who has a different opinion then King must be belittled, trolled or shouted down. Grow up guys.


There are also arguments based on research to the contrary. It may not be your intention to come across as belittling anyone who disagrees with YOUR opinion, but quite honestly that is how it seems. Does it not occur to you that they may be disagreeing with you and agreeing with his opinion because they already shared that, not because they are suck ups?

[Winbear]

"Out of the 40000 people who were killed by guns last year, roughly 250 of them were justifiable homicides.

That is a very small percentage of a big problem that is being ignored. " Well, at least somebody has responded with something more then childish comments. Yes, crime is a problem in this country. There are lot factors that lead to crime. I have done years of research and I am not convinced that adding more laws to the 25,000 gun laws that we already have on the books is going to make a difference. Also, here is an interesting fact, a study that was conducted by Gary Kleck a criminologists who started off with an anti-gun bias, showed that 2.5 million people use guns in self-defense a year. In most cases people are able to defend themselves by brandishing their guns.

[Sepia and Dust]

Silly me, I thought it was possible to have more then a one-way discussion, where everybody agrees with King's opinion. Of course not. Anybody who has a different opinion then King must be belittled, trolled or shouted down. Grow up guys.

Not having actually read his opinion, I don't know what Mr. King said. My opinion has been formed from years of research.

[Sepia and Dust]

Really? That's your best response? Instead of trying to actually argue with any of my points you resort to making statements that are both arrogant and childish. It's no wonder that your side is losing.

You don't know what my side is, Friend, except that I'd rather see one person dead than six. Everything I have to say, I've said pages (and months) ago. Read up.

[Winbear]

No more than you can. What we can prove is that a gun/bullet took it.

I don't think the burden of proof falls on me. The burden of proof falls on the person who makes the claim that more legislation will prevent more tragedies.

[Sepia and Dust]

That is a very small percentage of a big problem that is being ignored. " Well, at least somebody has responded with something more then childish comments.

That's about one too many for me. Out of your eight posts, at least half of them have insults. You're on my ignore list, and I hope that your next insult is your last one on this board.

[Autumnlyn]

My opinion is based largely on facts that I have gathered over years of research, which apparently offends people on this board to the point to where they can't even form a coherent argument and have to resort to childish behavior. Silly me, I thought it was possible to have more then a one-way discussion, where everybody agrees with King's opinion. Of course not. Anybody who has a different opinion then King must be belittled, trolled or shouted down. Grow up guys.

I am a longtime SKMB member and a gun owner/enthusiast, There are many points in SK essay that I don't agree with and some that I do. I have never felt belittled or attacked because I may not share the same beliefs as other members. I think maybe it's a matter of respect, respecting the fact that others may not share my opinion. And thats okay, I don't have to 'prove' Im right. ;) (j/k) I think it's the different opinions that make this Forum so fabulous. If we all were exactly like minded, WTH would we discuss? I don't know you Winbear, but the tone of your posts sounds annoyed and jacked up. I wouldn't be in any rush to hear and consider your views because of how they are being presented. Lighten up :) Share your information and opinions, but don't get so riled and resorting to demeaning remarks about members.

[Winbear]

You don't know what my side is, Friend, except that I'd rather see one person dead than six. Everything I have to say, I've said pages (and months) ago. Read up.
Okay, Friend. I suggest in the future you phrase your sentences better, so that you don't come off looking like a condescending jerk. Yes, your comment was pretty condescending. Asserting that I would be reckless enough to shot wildly at a person where there are several people present is beyond insulting. Just because you have responded to other comments like mine months ago, doesn't mean that you have be so rude about it.

[Winbear]

Excuse me? Did you not see the way they responded to me? It came off pretty condescending. I don't have a problem with other opinions, it's just childish behavior that I have a problem with you. I'll stop making demeaning remarks when they stop acting like children.

[Moderator]

I don't think the burden of proof falls on me. The burden of proof falls on the person who makes the claim that more legislation will prevent more tragedies.

Not having guns at all is the ONLY thing that would prevent more tragedies as a result from guns but I hardly think that's where anyone expects this to go and is unrealistic in our current society. If we're going to be honest here, there have been studies that can back up either side's argument so where does that leave the "burden of proof" other than that people are going to look more favorably on the "research" that backs up their opinion. What's that saying, people only ask for someone's else's opinion to verify what they already think?

[Winbear]

Yeah, guess the one who is allowed to be rude and condescending and rude is you. Right?

[Moderator]

Yeah, guess the one who is allowed to be rude and condescending and rude is you. Right?

I will ask again, do you have another point to bring to the discussion that has not already been discussed? You are coming late to a party that has been going on for quite some time now and the regular posters have already heard what you've said so far so there's not much point in belaboring it. We're already in the been there, done that phase of this topic and you're not, at least so far, bringing anything to the discussion that is likely to change the opinions they've already put forth if it hasn't already done so.

[Winbear]

There are also arguments based on research to the contrary. It may not be your intention to come across as belittling anyone who disagrees with YOUR opinion, but quite honestly that is how it seems. Does it not occur to you that they may be disagreeing with you and agreeing with his opinion because they already shared that, not because they are suck ups?

Excuse me, but the belittling started when somebody asserted that I would be reckless enough to endanger the lives of several innocent people and would rather see me dead because of it. Notice how I had a discussion with Atomicinchworm without belittling him? It's not the difference in opinion that bothers me, it's people who have to act condescending about it.

[Winbear]

Not having guns at all is the ONLY thing that would prevent more tragedies as a result from guns but I hardly think that's where anyone expects this to go and is unrealistic in our current society. If we're going to be honest here, there have been studies that can back up either side's argument so where does that leave the "burden of proof" other than that people are going to look more favorably on the "research" that backs up their opinion. What's that saying, people only ask for someone's else's opinion to verify what they already think? No that's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that when you make claims like "the only losers are those killed by guns or their families" (paraphrasing) as if it is fact that more gun laws would have prevented these tragedies, you must show proof. An opinion is different. If I somehow misunderstood your claim to be a simply as opposed to claiming as a fact, I apologize.

[Moderator]

No that's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that when you make claims like "the only losers are those killed by guns or their families" (paraphrasing) as if it is fact that more gun laws would have prevented these tragedies, you must show proof. An opinion is different. If I somehow misunderstood your claim to be a simply as opposed to claiming as a fact, I apologize.

My point is that we seem to be losing sight of the fact that there are real victims with families who loved them and to be throwing out responses such as "that's why your side is losing" as though this is a competition with winners and losers is forgetting the humanity of the victims and perhaps we need to be reminded of that fact.

[atomicinchworm]

"Out of the 40000 people who were killed by guns last year, roughly 250 of them were justifiable homicides.

That is a very small percentage of a big problem that is being ignored. " Well, at least somebody has responded with something more then childish comments. Yes, crime is a problem in this country. There are lot factors that lead to crime. I have done years of research and I am not convinced that adding more laws to the 25,000 gun laws that we already have on the books is going to make a difference. Also, here is an interesting fact, a study that was conducted by Gary Kleck a criminologists who started off with an anti-gun bias, showed that 2.5 million people use guns in self-defense a year. In most cases people are able to defend themselves by brandishing their guns.

I think it is impossible to number how many people are saved by guns every year, but it is not impossible to number how many are killed.

By you own statistic most people who save themselves with guns every year, never even have to fire them. The risk of being shot is enough to head off a vast a majority of criminals or attacks. I fail to see why large clips are necessary for self defense or hunting. While there have been times where it doesn't matter on the size of clip, there have also been times where it has, where by-standers have been able to stop the shooter because he was in the middle of reloading clips.

I am of the opinion that lives are valueable, and if a clip limit and assault rifle ban and background check requirements save a single life, they are worth it.

[Winbear]

My point is that we seem to be losing sight of the fact that there are real victims with families who loved them and to be throwing out responses such as "that's why your side is losing" as though this is a competition with winners and losers is forgetting the humanity of the victims and perhaps we need to be reminded of that fact.

Okay, if that's what meant by your statement then I apologize.

[Sepia and Dust]

I am of the opinion that lives are valueable, and if a clip limit and assault rifle ban and background check requirements save a single life, they are worth it.

I see that same logic tossed about pretty often, but it's never very good logic.

There're lots of things we can do that will save a single life... we could ban cars, ban every sort of factory emission, ban that puffer fish that kill you if it's cooked wrong. We could allow police to detain us indefinitely, and it would cut down on murders; we could disallow religious or political meetings and it would cut down on the number of radical extremists; we could throw people into old-style asylums like Bedlam, and it would cut down on the number of crazy people.

[Winbear]

I think it is impossible to number how many people are saved by guns every year, but it is not impossible to number how many are killed." I though Kleck did it quite well.

"By you own statistic most people who save themselves with guns every year, never even have to fire them. The risk of being shot is enough to head off a vast a majority of criminals or attacks. I fail to see why large clips are necessary for self defense or hunting." Yes, in most cases that's true. However, they may still come a time when you have to deal with somebody who isn't easily deterred. Occasionally it does happen. Like I said before, when it does happen do you want a) a gun that holds the least amount of bullets b) a gun that holds one shot c) a gun that holds the most amount of bullets possible ?

I am of the opinion that lives are valueable, and if a clip limit and assault rifle ban and background check requirements save a single life, they are worth it.

I also think lives are valueable, but I don't believe that anything that you just proposed would make a difference. As I said before, in many of the shootings gunmen were able to reload or switch to other firearms with little to no difficulty. In the case of Virginia Tech the only thing the gunman had were ten rd magazines and that didn't seem to stop him at all. Also, we have background checks. All Federally Licensed Dealers are required to perform them. Criminals and psychos will always find ways to get around them. Not to sound rude or condescending, but do you even know what an "assault weapon" is exactly?

[atomicinchworm]

Ultimately though, cars are a requirement in this country, unless you live in a huge city with a good public transport system, eating Fugu is your choice as an adult. As to the rest, basic human rights are why the others aren't considered, and this is a country founded on freedom with regulation.

I'm not saying it is the only thing we should do, like increased access to mental health services, but guns are a problem. I think people should absolutely be able to own guns, but I have yet to see a statistic that will change my mind as to the need of large clips and assault rifles. Every other amendment is regulated, why should the 2nd not be? Why should background checks not be a basic requirement of gun sales?

The last sentence I stated wasn't particularly logical, but it is how I feel on the matter. The other way isn't working, maybe it is time to try something else?

[atomicinchworm]

Not to sound rude or condescending, but do you even know what an "assault weapon" is exactly?

They are weapons capable of selective fire, including semi-automatic (the trigger must be pulled for each shot and the gun automatically loads a new bullet) and burst (several shots fired at once) and fully automatic. The weapons capable of fully automatic fire are heavily regulated already. The biggest problem I have with them is the number of bullets at once they are capable of holding.

I noticed that I tend to lump "weapons" into "rifles" and for that I apologize.

[Out of Order]

Also proving my point of why your side is losing more and more ground every day.

Funny, I didn't believe that my post was displaying the "taking of sides."

It was more to the point of another saying ...................one that involves a dead horse.