Resident shoots home invaders

[oneshooter]

A Missouri City man shot one of three attackers in a home invasion, police said.

http://www.chron.com/common/special/07/templates/lineuppop.html?mcVideo=958498245

Three attackers, one armed, at 3 in the afternoon! Scuffle in the house, one shot and critical, the other two fled.

Try that with a baseball bat!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[goclark]

1. Day time is the time to worry in our neighborhoods

Most of us are Seniors and people are always going in or out all day ~ still it happens.

Alarms may help a little but that's about it.

We have an alarm but so did the man across the street.
They know how to get in and get out so fast, the police can't get them.

Police said that most of them fit this --
between 15 and 28'all races
not necessarily from this neighborhood
carry a book bag
one may be walking ahead of the other, so check if you see only one.

If so the one is usually tall because if not, there are two because one can stand on the other's shoulder and break the window and get in.

[jgraz]

2. Woohoo! I wish I could shoot somebody!!

:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

3. As you lament victims who have died

we celebrate victims that can save themselves. That's all.

Collorary: We lament the victims that die as well.

[rd_kent]

4. That makes you a wingnut. You should seek help.

[mrbarber]

7. Self-defense makes you a wingnut now?

How does that work?

Don't own a gun, don't like them. That being said, I have NO issue with someone defending their home and safety hood.

[PavePusher]

8. Ummm, I think you missed this...

:sarcasm:

He's (rd_) on our side...

[rd_kent]

17. Uh, that was for the guy who said"woohoo! I want to shoot somebody"

[AtheistCrusader]

31. He was being sarcastic, in a very ugly way.

[jgraz]

36. Yeah, because "try that with a baseball bat!" isn't ugly at all.

:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

37. It's certainly messy.

Looks like all three invaders are going to live. Those damn death dealing firearms.

[jgraz]

38. You sound disappointed

You've yet to say what's ugly about pointing out yet another touchdown dance following a shooting.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I'll use the sarcasm tag next time, just for you.

It's a good example, that a firearm can protect you, without necessarily killing anyone.

Snarkiness aside, I prefer an outcome where the victim protects him or herself, without firing a gun at all if possible. You use the minimum amount of force necessary to make the threat go away. Self defense is not open season.

[jgraz]

57. And I prefer outcomes where crime victims don't have to deal with it on their own

As I said before, no one celebrates stories about a crime victim calling police and getting the perps arrested. This is probably because those stories aren't nearly as viscerally satisfying as a story of a lone gunman blowing away the bad guys.

We all prefer outcomes where criminals don't succeed. The problem comes when there's a preference for individual armed resistance over community- or government-based solutions (e.g. hiring more police or cutting down response times). That is a fundamentally right-wing, anti-government philosophy, and it's primarily what drives a lot of the pro-gun movement.

[PavePusher]

61. Wow. So you are blatently anti-self reliance.

We should all just wait for the police to show up. It's good to know exactly where you stand.

Tell me, what legal or moral principal says that I should have to rely on a third party for my defense or well-being?

[jgraz]

62. Yes, I'd rather not have homeowners needing to shoot invaders. Horrifying, isn't it?

Admit it, you'd prefer that more people get shot rather than having neighborhoods be safer. After all, that would require people working together to solve problems.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. I'd prefer homeowners (and renters) have the tools needed to remain safe.

That includes social protection of our police and courts, and means to prevent imminent physical harm. Something the Police cannot provide in all cases, and are not legally accountable for.

You could extend the same to fire protection. We have a social safety net of the fire department, but it's still a good idea to be prepared to deal with some fires on your own, for at least a limited amount of time. Fire extinguisher, hose, etc.

It doesn't mean you have to take great joy in it, or tempt fate, or try and engineer a situation where you might have to use any of these skills.


And frankly, what's the difference. If you order an invader to leave, and they do not submit, and you shoot them, what's the difference if they ignore police orders and get shot? Someone still got shot.

[PavePusher]

65. I hope I never have to shoot anyone at any time.

But, if my family, myself or my property are threatened with death, injury or destruction, I will use whatever force I deem necessary for defense until police can arrive.

Do you think I should act differently? Why or why not?

If you think I should disarm myself, do you promise to provide for my security? What gaurantee can you give me?




I will note that you have not answered any other questions yet.

[jgraz]

67. But you would take the tradeoff

If other people get shot so you are not impeded in your desire to own guns, that's OK with you, is it not?

I've never said that anyone should disarm themselves, nor have I said that you don't have the right to self defense if attacked. What my point has always been is that relying on personal, individual gun ownership to combat crime is not rational public policy. And when we celebrate the effects of this irrational public policy, it borders on the obscene.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Please.

"If other people get shot so you are not impeded in your desire to own guns, that's OK with you, is it not?"

Since when do we give up ANYTHING based on RARE criminal mis-use of inanimate objects? Schedule 1 drugs and that's about it. Negligent and criminal mis-use of autos kill many, many more people every year, yet we keep them for convienience.

And I was plenty 'impeded' in my desire to own firearms. Multiple background checks, a fingerprint check to see if any unsolved crimes could be tied to me, taxes, etc.

Every bullet I buy sets aside tax money for wildlife conservation.
Every time I show my ID for ammo purchases, I've given up a little anonymity.
Every time I fill out a form 4477, I am subjected to an unwarranted search.

How many times have YOU been fingerprinted for a full background check to exercise a basic, constitutional right?

My guns are no threat to you. No threat to my family. Not even my child. I am a responsible owner, and I will not apologize for the criminal or negligent mis-use of other people. It is not my fault. It is not on my head.

Put firearms education back in schools, see how many accidents there are. (Accidents are trending down anyway, and have been for decades)
Give us national health care that covers mental health issues, and see the suicide rate drop. Probably the murder-suicide rate too.
Give women (and men) REAL protection from battering spouses. Not a worthless piece of paper, and some words of encouragement.
Come up with a workable system of registration that can help end illegal firearm transfers. We put a man on the moon, we can figure this one out somehow. Open up NICS, something.

I will NOT accept finger pointing and blame for the criminal or negligent behavior of other humans. No more than you would accept the blame for the slander and libel of others, while expressing yourself freely.

Edit to address your second, added point
I do not espouse firearms ownership as a method of crime control. It is not the function of an individual to enforce the laws. That is for the police, the courts, and due process. A firearm in the hands of a private citizen (within the context of criminal activity) is for the individual, immediate protection of human life. Nothing more. Nothing less. (Excepting Texas, and other states that allow lethal force to protect Property)

It is not 'crime control' to say 'no, you're not going to pummel me' and fend off an attacker. Not if you use your hands, a bat, or a gun. It is pure self-preservation. (Or the preservation of others, as defined in your various state laws)

[jgraz]

81. Nobody said anything about "giving up", but we "impede" all the time

Tried to buy pseudoephedrine lately? Your driver's license is recorded along with your signature and the bar code of the package you buy. All because 400 meth heads a year manage to kill themselves. Imagine how hard it would be to get Sudafed if it were connected to 30,000 deaths / year.

I have to say, though, you're being a lot more sensible than many posters on this forum. Even mentioning the "R-word" (registration) usually gets you labeled a "grabber".

Personally, I'd be happy if we did most of what you suggest, with the exception of adding firearm safety to schools. That would just be too tempting a target for right-wingers who want to indoctrinate students.

I'd also like to see the right to sue restored for gun victims, closing of gun show loopholes and the placement of warning labels on handguns about suicide risk. We should also start tagging bullets so that they can be identified if they're ever fired during the commission of a crime.

However, I doubt even these modest changes will get by the gun lobby. They've managed to scare too many Congresscritters into abandoning basic principles of public safety.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. You've got a mix there of modest and not-so-modest.

Particularly the tagging issue. It's not technically all that feasible to add a mark that will survive the actual use of the round, and if you could, it will add considerable cost to the ammunition supply chain. Not a little bit, a LOT. It might solve a few crimes, maybe. The entire world goes through several billion rounds a year, and of those, many are hand-made. Registering lots of ammo to individuals is logistically daunting. Ammunition is even easier to make than an actual firearm, and even that's not terribly difficult, if you have a highschool metal shop at your disposal.

A firearms registry would be far FAR less expensive, and probably a better start. You'd have a massively reduced set of criminal mis-uses of firearms if we could just keep the guns out of the hands of prohibited people. Every time you see a gang-banger under the age of 21 with a handgun, you see a broken federal law. One that SHOULD result in a direct trace to the person that transferred that firearm to an ineligible person.

But we have a problem here. Two incidents in the US feed into the 'if we register our guns, they will take them' mindset. The california assault weapons registry, where they extended the registration period, then said 'whoopsie, nevermind, we're confiscating those', and then the Hughes amendment that closed the NFA registry and banned all further imported and manufactured select-fire weapons. That's going to be very difficult to overcome. Plus, there's the bullshit lies already ingrained about how 'hitler banned guns for jews' and all that shit. Some of that can be educated away, but the two US bans (one effective ban, one confiscation) set up resistance that is going to be nearly impossible to overcome. I'd do it, I'd register my guns right away if needed, if nothing else, but in hopes they be returned by police if somehow they were stolen. Most Americans will not, and unfortunately, they have historical precedent to back up that opposition.

I think the so-called gun show loophole can be plugged with NICS. Simply require a NICS check on all private transfers, and pay the FFL's to perform the check 'for free' from a federal pile of money. Probably backstopped by another ammo tax. It needn't be much money, actually. That gets not just your 'gun shows', but also newspaper classifieds, garage sales, flea markets, person to person 'friend' sales, etc. Gun shows are actually a fairly small percentage of private transfers, and it's pointless to JUST force gun shows to do a NICS check. If you're going to do it, go whole enchilada, and force checks on private transfers, period. If we take away the associated cost, by backing the FFL's to perform this for 'free', then I think you'll see little opposition. Some people will break the law anyway, because they don't trust that a NICS check doesn't amount to registration, but it'll help. A lot of firearms owners, myself included, never sell a gun, because I really have no mechanism to ensure the person I'm selling to isn't ineligible. Something like a Concealed Pistol license is better than nothing, but if it's more than a day old, the damn thing could have been revoked for all I know.


Idunno about school indoctrination. My highschool had a rifle team in the 60's. Long gone before Class of 96, but the school never once had an accident. I don't know that no student who ever took the class didn't have an accident outside school, but overall, this wasn't a big deal 30-50 years ago. I don't see why it can't be done in a clinical fashion. Much like STD and sex education, I don't think it encourages 'bad' behavior. Maybe make sure it's politics-agnostic. The NRA Eddie Eagle class is actually free of indoctrination, but I can understand that giving you pause. Which is too bad the NRA has such a large and active political organ, because the program is very, very good at teaching firearms safety. A throwback to the days when the NRA was all about teaching people marksmanship, and nothing political at all.

[jgraz]

83. Here's an article on tagged bullets from last year

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/16247557.html

Not foolproof yet, but at the cost of a penny per 10 rounds, it's certainly doable from a pricing point of view.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Just one piece of the puzzle.

What I think we're really looking at there, is a ploy to secure a patent, ahead of a real, working solution. See the repeated barcode on that bullet? Think that'll scale to billions of rounds PER YEAR? If you thought license plates were constrained...

There are a couple other planned marking systems, I like one that has a physical serial number imprint under the copper jacket, but it's more expensive, and shares the same constraints around total available serial numbers.

None of this addresses the cost of registering this sort of ammo, at hundreds of millions of rounds sold per year, to individuals, either individually or in lots. The costs and complexity of this system would be mind-boggling. It would also dry up 'cheap' sources such as milsurp ammo.

Not terribly winnable. California's stamping solution is somewhat better, but that technology is still in it's infancy, and requires improvement. Plus it'll ultimately require registration of the firearm, which while I agree, is a good idea, it's also a low, slow flying target the NRA and others will destroy.

[PavePusher]

90. There is this problem with freedom:

It's messy, dangerous and scary. And people, being people, are going to abuse it.

But it beats the unholy living snot out of every alternative.

If I have to chose between freedom and perceived safety, I will choose freedom every time. Evolution will take care of the rest.

[jgraz]

91. Owning a gun is not "freedom"

As demonstrated by the vast majority of your pro-gun colleagues who will abandon every freedom the right-wing desires as long as they can keep their guns.

[PavePusher]

92. 'Owning a gun is not "freedom"'

Interesting assertion, no valid support.


"As demonstrated by the vast majority of your pro-gun colleagues who will abandon every freedom the right-wing desires as long as they can keep their guns."

Stupid assertion, no valid support.



I'm off to the bicycle swap meet, I'll check back later.

[jgraz]

116. So you believe the majority of pro-gun advocates are *not* right-wingers?

Seriously?

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Have you ever had to call the police, and wait, while someone actively attempted to inflict harm

?


I have. It sucks. Time dilation may make it seem even longer than it is, but even 5 minutes (which is unrealistically optimistic) is too long in most cases. It's just not terribly realistic. How long does it take for someone to crawl in after breaking a window? Not long.

I certainly agree, a firearm is no substitute for calling the police. But if you NEED a firearm RIGHT NOW, nothing else will do. If it makes you feel better, ALL emergency plans for my household include contacting the police ASAP. (Or fire/med as appropriate) Hiring more police won't cut down response times to the point no victim, ever, will need to act as a first responder. It's just not possible. Right now, the police make up about 0.0004% of the population. They could be 50% of the population, and you STILL might need a firearm to protect yourself.

And ultimately, what's the point? All you've done is farm out the use of a firearm for protection, to another human being. I can go through the Citizens Academy at the local PD, and use their range, and take their training too. Why make another human shoulder that risk for me?

If you assume that I am a bloodthirsty individual, looking for an excuse to kill, ok, fine, your point makes more sense. I'm sorry to dissapoint you though, I'll die a happy old man if I never, ever have to use a firearm for self defense.

[jgraz]

66. This is where we always end up: personal, emotional, fear-based arguments.

When people say that the pro-gun arguments are driven by fear, this is exactly what we're talking about. You don't personally want to ever be in a situation where you have to wait in fear for the police to show up.

Now, given your experience, that's perhaps an understandable position. But it doesn't make it the right policy choice for a modern society. And it's certainly not something to be celebrated.

[ManiacJoe]

69. You are forgetting an important part of "waiting".

> You don't personally want to ever be in a situation where you
> have to wait in fear for the police to show up.

While you are waiting for the police to arrive, you are not just sitting in an easy chair tapping your fingers. What you are doing is either suffering the physical violence that is current being done to you or you are expecting the threatened violence to start at any second. (Of course, this assumes that there was a big enough break in the action to allow you to call the police in the first place.)

Should you be unlucky enough to find yourself in a situation where defending yourself is the best course of action, having the appropriate tools to aid in that defense fall under the category of "proper emergency planning". The self defense tools are used to help survive the waiting period.

[jgraz]

70. Doesn't change my basic point. It's still a personal, fear-based argument.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. As is reserving resources for my earthquake kit.

At some basic level, I 'fear' being unprepared for an earthquake, technically. But in Seattle, I consider it 'prudent'. Nevermind that I could repurpose those resources toward any number of 'non-fear driven preparedness' activities.

[jgraz]

73. How many people do you think Hasan would have killed with an earthquake kit?

Earthquake kits and fire extinguishers do not have the negative effects on society that handguns do. Let's try not to pretend they're equivalent.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. My kit has a fire axe.

Plenty of people are killed every year with blunt and sharp instruments. Not as many as firearms, but the numbers are real. The deaths are real. It is no more my responsibility around criminal mis-use of knives and axes, than it is for firearms. I am not a criminal. I am a responsible adult.

They are equivalent. I own all three products for the same reason. The mitigation of risk. Risk of fire. Risk of starvation in a disaster. Risk of violent attack at hands (or claws) of another human or animal.

[taurus145]

85. Different tools for different jobs

I can use an axe for a number of things.

I can use a fire extinguisher to...

I use firearms for specific purposes. I hunt and shoot for recreation with rifles, shotguns, and handguns. I prefer a shotgun for home defense, but my .45 ACP works almost as well. I can't reasonably carry a shotgun on my person outside the home, so I carry a handgun.

Why do I carry a handgun? I've received a number of death threats because of my work in corrections. One might say that my carry handguns are disaster avoidance kits.

[viscrente]

132. one thing about Hasan...

The only reason he was able to shoot so many on an ARMY base was because under Clinton soldiers were no longer allowed to carry their handguns on an army base. So the soldiers were all law abiding citizens... unfortunately for them.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Can you point to many incidents where the police DO show up in time?

Ignoring all the other factors, such as the 2nd amendment, hunting, target sport, olympic sport, and all the rest that use Firearms.

I have a large list of why I keep firearms around. Home invasions, which have picked up in frequency where I live, since the economic downturn, are just one reason. It's not particularly 'fear driven' any more than my rationale for a smoke detector in every room, CO dectors, fire codes requiring potentially toxic fire retardants in our furniture, and multiple fire extinguishers throughout the house.

Evacuation is preferred, but there are always mitigating circumstances.

[jgraz]

74. If the police are *never* able to prevent a crime, don't you think that's a problem?

A problem that might not be solved by arming everyone?

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Everyone who wants to, is able.

I would not force someone to arm themselves if they choose not to. That would be just about as much of an infringement on thier freedom, as taking away their tools for self defense would be.

(Felons and the adjudicated mentally insane excepted of course)


The police are SOMETIMES able to prevent, or reduce the harm of a violent crime in progress. The only way they could ALWAYS do so, would require a massive police state, and intrusion of the police into your personal affairs. Constant surveilance. etc.

[agoraphile]

88. Has someone proposed arming everyone? I must have missed that pearl of wisdom...

:shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

109. The harsh reality is that your solution is not possible.

There is no way to give a guarantee that the police will be able to respond in time to prevent the crime. A police response time of two minutes, guaranteed would be great, but an armed robbery can take only a few seconds. Many other crimes can be over with in seconds.

It is up to the individual to take responsibility for their own safety until help arrives.

[jgraz]

117. It's not possible in 100% of the cases. But it's possible to improve on the current system

And stories about the system failing are not something we should be celebrating.

[PavePusher]

118. "stories about the system failing are not something we should be celebrating"

Well, other than the fact that you define "stories of the system failing" as "Citizens who succesfully defend themselves while waiting for the police to arrive", you might have a point.

And you don't think we should be celebrating those event where Citizens legaly ensure their personal safety.

Wow, it appears to me that you just really hate people...


At what point do you think people should be allowed to defend themselves?

[jgraz]

119. Yes, I'd prefer a system where people don't need to shoot home invaders

You seem to prefer a system where homeowners get the opportunity to use fellow human beings for target practice.

And somehow *I'm* the one who hates people? :shrug:

[GreenStormCloud]

121. We would all like to have such a system.

But we gunnies know that such a system is impossible and that we have to fend for ourselves between the beginning of the crime and the arrival of law-enforcement. That is a reality that you like to pretend doesn't exist.

The only thing that you have to offer is disarmament of the law-abiding and leaving us to the tender mercies of violent felons. My wife would have already been murdered by one such felon, except that she was carrying a gun. When the felon saw that his victim-selection program had produced an error message he aborted the program and booted up Run-Away. My wife returned home alive and feeling greatly empowered that a large young male had ran away from a tiny senior female. Sam Colt made a great equalizer - although she was packing an S&W 642 with Crimson Trace Laser.

[jgraz]

123. You're letting your paranoia get the best of you

I've never advocated the "disarmament of the law-abiding". You seem to prefer to argue against positions I've never stated.

I've also never said that a 100% foolproof system of law enforcement is possible. My position has been that we can make things safer and that situations like those in the OP are not an indication that all is right with the world.

I'd also argue that some of the gunnies would *not* like a safer system, even one the was 100% safe. Those like PavePusher seem to prefer a world where they have the opportunity to shoot at each other on occasion.

[PavePusher]

127. "Yes, I'd prefer a system where people don't need to shoot home invaders"

What is your proposal?

What should people do while waiting for police to arrive?

Are you going to be there to ensure they have the wisdom of your personal judgement and advice?

[GreenStormCloud]

128. You have never advocated any position other than those I have accused you of.

All I have ever seen from you is the typical gun-grabber stuff. You continually refuse to engage in discussion of the points that we make.

[jgraz]

129. Boy that's some stellar logic there

You've never advocated against pig fucking. I guess we know what you do in your spare time.

[one-eyed fat man]

134. why do you always

jump on to defend the miserable pieces of shit who prey on the weak and defenseless after they run onto the one victim who unable to wait for the fairy princess to arrive to save them from the poor disenfranchised misunderstood free-lance wealth redistribution entrepreneurs has blasted the fuckheads into their well deserved trip to hell?

Slicky boys who have nothing better to do than terrorize the elderly and get themselves shot bother me not one whit! I know that it goes against your desire to see every criminal unfettered in his quest to commit whatever depravities his little old heart desires just so some old fart doesn't take it upon himself to stop them just because he is the one being robbed.

Fellow human beings treat their fellow humans with respect and dignity, they do not choose to rob, rape, steal, and fucking plunder. Oh yeah, tell me about their poverty, yada yada yada. The punks went around targeting old people. There are bacteria with a higher level of humanity than those scumbags you mourn so pitifully. Everyone of those punks, thugs, delinquents or whatever you want to label those misfits and miscreants CHOSE WILLFULLY TO COMMIT A CONFONTATIONAL CRIME. They were after the look of terror on their victims' faces as much as they were after the cash. Like ripping the wings off butterflies!

[spin]

5. Any knowledgeable gun owner especially those with concealed carry licenses...

knows that shooting another person is the last thing you ever want to do.

Even if you are totally in the right, shooting another person will cause you psychological damage. Police officers often experience this and have to go through extensive treatment. Plus you may well experience legal costs and possibly a civil lawsuit.

However, a home invasion is one of the worst crimes a robber can commit. The intruders could care less that the home is occupied. This makes the invaders extremely dangerous as it is hard to determine exactly what their intentions are.

Often when a home invasion results in death, serious injury or rape, the newspapers plaster the story all over the front page. In some cases the story makes national news. A situation in which the homeowner successfully defends himself and his family receives far less publicity.

It may be possible that successful home invasions lead to copycat crimes. Perhaps if the stories where homeowners were successful in using a firearm to stop an invasion received as much publicity, fewer such crimes would be attempted.

The news media with their anti-gun bias is eager to report incidents where a criminal used a firearm. Often they promote gun control with these stories. Of course, gun control only takes firearms away from honest citizens. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Criminals will always be able to obtain guns. The criminals commit more crimes against citizens when draconian gun laws are passed as they realize that honest citizens are disarmed. More tragic incidents happen and the news media can use these events to push for even more gun control.

But the media tends to ignore stories which involve the successful use of firearms to deter criminals. Such stories might promote the sale of firearms, the last thing the media wants.

Fortunately, the general public is waking up to the fact that honest citizens are not the problem. Shall issue concealed carry permits are now issued in most states and the terrible predictions made be the anti-gun groups are proved false again and again.

If more effort by both the anti and pro gun groups was made to force our government to target criminals and drug gangs, we would reduce crime far more than any "feel good" law such as the assault weapons ban could ever hope to accomplish.

Of course, incarcerating criminals is only one step to reducing crime. Education, providing good paying jobs, reducing racism and legalizing certain drugs are also extremely important.

[JoeyT]

10. I wish more people understood this

"Even if you are totally in the right, shooting another person will cause you psychological damage."
This is something that causes emotional trauma to police and soldiers...People that are trained to deal with it. It's absolutely devastating for a regular man/woman with no training. I know one person that used a gun in self defense, and even he didn't kill the guy. He missed center mass in the dark and hit him in the arm, then spent 6 years being treated for depression/PTSD. Even that was better than the alternative of being dead. (It wasn't a robbery.)

[jgraz]

33. Your comments on media bias are just plain wrong

I assume you're doing the "stuff that shows up on my teevee" data gathering technique, because any serious study of MSM gun coverage does not support you in the least.

For example, just look at the recent coverage of the Ft. Hood shooting: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911060009

The idea of gun control was mentioned exactly once in all the coverage of the tragedy.


The media cover things that get them ratings. Stories about mass shooting make good national TV. Stories about one guy shooting a burglar make good local TV. Stories about a teenager using Dad's gun to off herself don't make the news at all.

[X_Digger]

42. a bit disingenuous, no?

They're searching for the exact words 'gun control'.. but in watching the coverage, I heard many of the 'gun control' memes- 'cop killer' gun, how did he purchase it, was it at a gun show, how many rounds does this magazine hold, etc etc...

[jgraz]

44. If you can point to coverage advocating gun control, be my guest

Asking questions about what kind of gun was used and where he got it is just common sense, not a push for stricter gun laws.

[X_Digger]

45. But speculating on 'gun show loophole'? And tying in Hasan?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5377511n (A re-tread of the Bloomberg "hidden video")

I saw that news story last night or the night before, this was tacked on after an update on the Ft Hood shooting.

To claim that just because nobody said the specific words 'gun control' means that nobody's advocating gun control is a little disingenuous.

[jgraz]

46. That report is from October 11th, well before anyone heard of Hasan.

How did they manage to tie it to Hasan?

[X_Digger]

47. definition of re-tread..

.. they played the same piece _again_ after an update on the Ft Hood shooting..

[jgraz]

48. Sounds more like laziness

They probably sank a lot of their budget into that "special" report. Gotta get their money's worth.

[X_Digger]

68. True, true..

.. but when CBS starts talking guns, I usually get :crazy: :eyes: :grr:

[jgraz]

35. Oh, and you know what almost *never* makes the news?

Situations where the home owner dials 911, the cops show up and the burglars go away for 20 years.

Wouldn't that also be a deterrent to crime?

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Yes it does.

Well, it DOES make the local news. It just doesn't do so very often, because it so rarely happens. West seattle has a 'crime blotter' published yearly by the police department detailing all crimes that were reported. Precious few are associated with immediate captures and convictions.

[oneshooter]

6. If you REALLY want to

Then go down to the recruiter of your preferred service and attempt to enlist. I would not tell the recruiter that you "wish I could shoot somebody" as that will get you booted out the door!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[jgraz]

12. One of these days, we should discuss the concept of sarcasm.

[oneshooter]

60. It is my guess, just a guess, that you have no idea

how stupid that remark was. With, or without:sarcasm:

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[proteus_lives]

9. No, you don't and I hope I never have to.

But the difference between us is that you would rather they be unarmed and victimized.

[jgraz]

11. Do you practice your Dirty Harry snarl when you recite those talking points?

This is why most thinking people can't take the pro-gun position as anything but laughable. If you have an argument to make, make it. But your 5th-grade playground slogans just reinforce the stereotype of gun owners as irrational wannabe tough guys.

[proteus_lives]

13. So hoping I never have to use a gun on another human being makes me "Dirty Harry"?

:rofl:

"This is why most thinking people can't take the pro-gun position as anything but laughable"

Really? Is that why gun rights are supported by the majority of the nation? That's why there is CCW in 48 states? That's why the most successful Democrats are the ones who have run as far away from the gun control platform as fast as they can?

:rofl:

Can't accept that your position is one of the least worthy fringe parts of the party can you? And do you know why? Because most Democrats/liberals/progressives don't want to strip their fellow citizens of their rights.

"But your 5th-grade playground slogans just reinforce the stereotype of gun owners as irrational wannabe tough guys."

Tough guy? Not really. I haven't been a fight since high school and I hope that's how it stays. I've never fired my gun anywhere but the range and I hope that is how it stays. You're stereotyping me. It's a very bigoted thing to do. I hope you never turn your fear and authoritarian impulses on another group.

[jgraz]

14. Oh joy, another "who, me?" response.

Let's make a deal. You don't spew tired bullshit about gun control advocates wanting people to be victimized, and I'll avoid comments about irrational wannabe tough guys. And small penises.

[proteus_lives]

15. Ok, I'm willing to make a deal.

I'll stop when you stop trying to take away people's rights. That is all most of us want. I'm not trying to take anything from you so just give back the same respect. Is that really too much to ask?

[jgraz]

16. You just can't resist the tired NRA rhetoric

Please, give us all a break with the "trying to take away your rights" whining. The level of gun deaths in the country is a legitimate public health problem, and trying to find intelligent ways to combat it is not "taking away your rights".

I honestly think you'd be happier if I really DID want to ban all guns. At least then your paranoia would have a rational target.

[proteus_lives]

18. NRA? How about all that Brady propaganda you and yours spread around.

"The level of gun deaths in the country is a legitimate public health problem" So are alcohol and tobacco related deaths. But no one talks about banning them anymore.

We already have gun laws. We don't need anymore. We need to approach the root problems. Education, poverty, the war on drugs, etc. It's a slippery slope and each law makes it easier for politicians and Brady-like groups to "protect us" from our rights.

[jgraz]

19. Except I'm not the one spewing unfounded talking points

"The level of gun deaths in the country is a legitimate public health problem" So are alcohol and tobacco related deaths. But no one talks about banning them anymore.

Um... you may wish to take a look at the top of the page. What forum is this again?

We already have gun laws. We don't need anymore

Laws aren't a natural resource, like oil or coal. It's nonsensical to say we have "enough" laws in any subject. Laws can always use some improvement and, in the case of firearms laws, they can use a great deal of improvement. Wanting to have better and more effective laws is not some irrational "slippery slope". It's just a sensible approach to public policy. (Something the pro-gun crowd is deathly afraid of).

[taurus145]

20. Try this

Let's use D.C. and Chicago as examples.

I'll not do the research for you because you likely won't accept research done by a gun owner and an avid RKBA proponent. Look up the firearm crime rates. If you do the research honestly, you'll find that in EVERY major city that has enacted gun bans, the murder rate has increased.

Here's a teaser, D.C.'s murder rate in 1991, 16 years after it's handgun ban, was over 90 per 100,000. That's more than double the rate before the ban. Not all were committed with handguns, but the majority were.

[Euromutt]

21. If I can correct you there, Taurus

The causal relationship arguably runs the other way; strict gun laws don't cause violent crime rates to increase, but rather, a high incidence of gun crimes prompts local governments to adopt strict gun laws. Problem is that the stricter gun laws almost invariably don't work because the people who were committing the gun crimes weren't the kind of people inclined to obey the new gun laws, and because the violent crime wasn't caused by guns (rather, the violent crime raised demand for guns), so the city ends up with a continued high violent crime rate in spite of having tighter gun laws.

The DC prohibition on all handguns and operable long guns didn't cause the increase in violent crime--I think we can safely attribute that to federal drugs policy--but it certainly did jack to stop the violent crime rate from soaring.

[jgraz]

24. Yeah, that's not entirely true

The DC ban went into effect in 1977. By 1985, the city recorded its lowest homicide rate in 20 years. Then crack hit all the big cities and the crime rates went up nationally. DC, surrounded by gun-happy states with lax purchasing requirements, experienced the same increase as everyone else. As the crack epidemic burned itself out, crime rates across the country began dropping.

This is what's so difficult about measuring the effectiveness of any gun policy: too many factors feed into the crime rate. And not all public health indications were negative after the ban. The rate of teen suicide by firearms went down, likely due to a lack of accessible handguns in the home. From 2000 to 2002, DC registered exactly zero teen firearm suicides.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. So what was the DC teen suicide rate in the years 1977 to 2002?

And was it similar to other large cities without a handgun ban in those years?

If it went down significantly, I will concede the point.

It's the act, not the instrument that matters. Losing a child to suicide is a tragedy no matter how it was done.

Scant comfort if the depressed teens simply chose another method.

[jgraz]

43. DC gun suicide *and homicide* rate went down after the gun ban

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/23/1615

By 2000, the DC's gun suicide rate by teens was the lowest in the nation. And, as is usual with these suicide studies, the states with the highest rate of gun ownership had the highest rates of gun suicide.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989/T1

Note that suicides by other means remains relatively flat, while gun suicides track closely with the rate of gun ownership.



Edit: It IS the instrument that matters here. A gun suicide is much, much more likely to be fatal than most other methods. Also, handguns are a low-effort, low-pain solution as opposed to slitting your wrists, finding some pills or tying a noose. I suspect that this is why there are more suicide attempts in high-gun states. And, since these attempts use firearms, they are almost always successful.

[taurus145]

53. I have to run, but

I have to question the honesty of the researchers in the first link. 1991 (16 years after passage and 14 tears after implementation of the D.C. ban) was a banner year for murder in D.C. The highest rate ever. Almost every year since passage has had a higher per capita murder rate in D.C.

Even the D.C police, who are famous for fudging numbers confirm that.

I'll have to check the second link later. Duty calls. Gotta work to pay the bills.

[jgraz]

54. Once again, the homicide rate was going down before the crack epidemic

Then the rate went down as crack became less of a problem. Just like in every US city.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. So what was the DC teen suicide rate in the years 1977 to 2002?

The sources you gave did not break out by age, and the first one only covered up to 1985

However, the first study shows that the DC 'suicide by firearm' rate wasn't all that high to begin with (around 30 or so per year), and the gun homicide rate in 1985 was still ca. 76% of what it was pre-ban. And it rose later to where it is today.

Still, it must be admitted that some deaths were prevented during the period studied, and it would seem there was no
'method substitution' at that time.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/23/1615

...RESULTS. In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns...

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. No answer to the question asked, as usual...

n/t

[jgraz]

112. Oh stop playing games

You asked a specific question that requires a bit of research. It's not like we all have these stats memorized. If you're genuinely interested in learning something (and not just fucking with me so you can pretend to win an argument), maybe you can throw a little google time into finding out the answer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. No games. The sources you gave don't give figures for teen suicide

While it is quite possible that what you claimed about teen suicide via firearm in DC is true, there is no way to to tell definitively from the sources you cited. And after all:

..."backing it up" means pointing to one article that supports you. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.

[jgraz]

130. You asked a question tangentially related to the facts I stated

Why don't you go look it up for yourself? I didn't quote the teen suicide rates for 1977-2000, so why do you think I need to do research to back up your queries?

[taurus145]

52. I didn't reference suicide

or specifically teen suicide, but I'll do a little looking.

If you note, I was referring to murder. Incidentally, most states do not classify murder as a violent crime. Sad, but true.

[jgraz]

59. OK, you need to back that one up

States do not classify murder as a violent crime? Are you kidding?

[taurus145]

84. Absolutely

I'm a retired corrections captain. Have also worked as a corrections case worker.

Take it as anecdotal from an expert. I've testified as an expert in these matters numerous times.

[jgraz]

87. No, "backing it up" means pointing to one article that supports you

Otherwise, it's just an opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at least *some* evidence.

[taurus145]

94. It's only extraordinary to those ignorant

of the criminal justice system.

Do a little research. It won't hurt you.

No matter what the media and so-called experts call it, corrections and justice officials do not consider it a violent crime.

Apples/apples: No matter what the media, Congress, and pundits called it, the 1994 awb banned not one single assault weapon.

[jgraz]

98. Welcome to the internets

Where people can't just bloviate nonsense without facts.

Edit: Well, they can. They just can't do it without someone commenting on it.

[taurus145]

104. Ooooooo sarcasm

I've got well over 20 years of facts to back that one up.

You can find them, too. Just do a little work. How about this? Make a phone call to any correctional facility caseworker anywhere in the U.S. they'll tell you the same. Oh wait! I did that job already - both the caseworking and telling you.

[jgraz]

113. "most states do not classify murder as a violent crime"

We have some pretty knowledgeable people on this forum. Let's see if any of them agrees with that extraordinary statement.

[taurus145]

120. I didn't expect you to expend the energy

n/t

[jgraz]

125. I actually did expend the energy. I found out you're full of shit.

Which didn't take much time at all.

Edit: forgot the damn link. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

[Euromutt]

106. You're kind of skewing your own interpretation of the facts as well, aren't you?

The DC ban went into effect in 1977. By 1985, the city recorded its lowest homicide rate in 20 years. Then crack hit all the big cities and the crime rates went up nationally. DC, surrounded by gun-happy states with lax purchasing requirements, experienced the same increase as everyone else.

Your argument is not entirely logical. Yes, it's pretty evident that the DC homicide rate soared to the levels it did because of the "crack wars"; though, given that the violent death rate in DC was higher than Beirut's during the late 1980s, it's safe to say that the increase was larger in DC than in most places on the eastern seaboard. The problem is that you can't blame the surrounding "gun-happy states with lax purchasing requirements" (which is a description I've not heard anyone apply to Maryland before, but I digress) for being the source of the firearms used in the "crack wars" without discounting the effectiveness of the DC handgun ban prior to the "crack wars." After all, between 1977 and 1985, DC was surrounded by those very same states. I.e. the only factor in the equation that changed between 1985 and 1991 was the willingness of (certain) DC residents to kill each other, and DC gun laws failed to make the slightest dent.

You're also rather conveniently overlooking the fact that the years 1977-1985 didn't see a gradual decline in homicide and non-fatal violent crime, but rather that after 1977, incidence of both increased before subsiding again. Admittedly, the crimes rates didn't rise to the levels of the early 1970s (which, presumably, prompted the imposition of the handgun ban), but they weren't prevented from increasing by the handgun ban either.

The bottom line is that public safety in DC depends appears to depend almost entirely on its more criminally inclined residents not to commit mayhem; the handgun ban didn't cause them to behave less badly, and it didn't prevent from behaving more badly. The only people disarmed by the gun ban were the people who weren't inclined to break the law (including the laws on discharging firearms in public with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on others) in the first place.

[jgraz]

111. I'm not interpreting the facts at all.

I'm making a simple point: to say that the homicide rate went up after the DC gun ban is misleading at best. You know I don't put much stock in crime stats as a metric of the effectiveness of gun policy, and I've never made the argument that the DC homicide rate meant that the gun ban was effective.

But the supposed "skyrocketing" of DC's murder rate has been used as a pro-gun propaganda for years, and it's just plain wrong.

[Euromutt]

131. But the homicide rate *did* go up after the DC gun ban!

It rose until 1981, then dropped again, and then the "crack wars" started and that's when it skyrocketed. I'm not arguing that changes in the DC violent crime and homicide rates were caused by the gun ban, but it seems highly plausible that the ban had little to no effect on the crime rate.

And yes, I'm well aware that you "don't put much stock in crime stats as a metric of the effectiveness of gun policy," but I can't shake the suspicion that that is simply because those statistics do not support your argument (whatever your argument is, since you're waxing near-Iverglassian in obfuscating your point). I think I'm safe in saying that the generally accepted rationale for gun control is to increase public safety. It might not be yours, but it is the rationale most commonly heard. The suggestion, at the very least, is that a reduction in "gun violence" will result in a reduction in overall violence; there are never caveats about method substitution or the possibility that the criminal element will simply acquire its firearms from farther afield, etc. That is why, even though crime statistics may be an imperfect measure of the effectiveness of gun control, they are the one measure that matters.

[taurus145]

51. You're missing the point.

While it is indeed a casual reference, it is conclusive that the overall murder rate in D.C. increased after the gun ban, enacted in '75 that went into full effect in '77.

It's been proven time and again. Criminals are far more likely to commit crimes when they feel they are safer in doing so.

We could spend years researching and tallying every cause of crime in D.C.. They are many.

In the end it boils down to one thing: people who commit violent crimes are no damn good.

[jgraz]

89. No, the homicide rate was dropping in DC before crack entered the picture

It's been proven time and again. Criminals are far more likely to commit crimes when they feel they are safer in doing so.

No, it's been alleged time and time again. There's never been a single reputable study that backs up this bogus claim.

[taurus145]

95. I'm done finished with this

You've got your mind set about this. It's obvious you want all research done for you because you don't want to do it yourself. It appears as though you'd rather refuse to believe that which disagrees with your beliefs than dig a bit and find that evidence supports something different. I've better things to do than hold your hand.

Give a man a fish...

[jgraz]

99. You're done finished, are you?

:eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Perfectly cromulent grammar in certain areas.

It's called "regional usage".

Don't pitch a nutty over it!

[jgraz]

101. Looks like I need to bower him a dictionary

(Yes, people really say that.)

[taurus145]

103. Done finished

"Humor. A difficult concept." (Lt. Saavik Star Trek: The Motion Picture)

As the cabinet maker said after the last coat of varnish dried, "I'm done finished with that."

[Euromutt]

107. The DC homicide rate went up before it came down

Yes, the DC homicide rate in 1985 was the lowest it'd been since 1966; but between 1977 and 1985, the homicide and violent crimes rates went up before they came down.
Figures here: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

[AtheistCrusader]

32. No, keep making the small penis jokes.

That's fine. Shows your level of maturity.

[jgraz]

34. Who me? I didn't make a small penis joke.

I simply mentioned them as an equivalent level of childishness from the other side.

Would you like me to make small penis jokes? Is that something you enjoy?

[Euromutt]

22. And it's Arnold's Law again

http://www.bullshido.org/Arnold%27s_Law

And it's Dirty Harry, one of the triumvirate, along with James Bond and any John Wayne role (they're all pretty indistinguishable anyway).

[jgraz]

25. Nice of you to promote your own internet meme

JGraz's Law: If any gun control comment appears on a forum with pro-gun advocates, the probability that someone will accuse the poster of a) wanting people to be victimized, b) being on the side of the criminals or c) hating freedom *is* 1.

I won't include your "let's ban anyone we disagree with" corollary (which was really the object of your "law" in the first place).

[slackmaster]

28. You haven't said a blessed thing about gun control in this thread

:nuke:

[jgraz]

30. Sometimes all it takes is a post that isn't sufficiently pro-gun

Then the NRA talking points start flying.

[Euromutt]

105. It's not entirely my own, actually

As the bullshido.org page says, I'm the one who originally suggested that there should a variant of Godwin's Law, but I have nothing to with bullshido.org, and did not post it there, nor did I name it (I'd have probably named it "Callahan's Law"). In a sense, I didn't even invent the meme: rather, I identified a pre-existing trend in internet discussions on gun control, and managed to put it into words. The reason I cite it is because quite a few pro-RKBA flame warriors have recognized this phenomenon.

The point of corollary is not to so much to actively and permanently ban anyone, but rather, to refuse to dignify their bullshit with a response. There's an escape clause, namely if a person is prepared to discuss an issue on its merits, rather than casting aspersions on anyone who disagrees with you, then there's a point to talking with that person.

I don't expect you to understand, jgraz; you're pathologically unable to engage in a mutually respectful discussion where firearms are concerned. If someone consistently refuses to swallow your bullshit, you blame them and call them "obtuse." And then you're shocked and horrified that what goes around comes around, namely that people start treating you the same way.

[jgraz]

115. Quite the fantasy you've built up around me

If it makes you feel better to believe it, go right ahead.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. Not a fantasy at all.

You consistantly advocate a position that would have the practical effect of disarming the peaceful law-abiding folks and leaving them to the mercies of violent felons.

[jgraz]

124. Well, I thought "paranoid delusion" might be a bit strong

But your responses are bringing me around.

[slackmaster]

23. Are you capable of engaging in a conversation without stooping to juvenile personal attacks?

I haven't seen you do it on this forum yet.

[jgraz]

26. Once again, the gunnies' need to be the victim comes to the surface

Typical of bullies, you feel free to paste me with whatever insane accusations you wish (in this case, that I'd like to see people victimized), and when I respond you start whining about personal insults.

[slackmaster]

27. Did I say you'd like to see people victimized?

Hello?

[jgraz]

29. Is it too much to ask for a little context before you respond to a thread?

I didn't insult you, yet you took it upon yourself to castigate me for my post. You might have taken the time to read *just one post back* to see what prompted my response.

[Euromutt]

108. Yes, *let's* look at context.

You said to slackmaster:

I didn't insult you <...>

In your post #9 you asserted:

This is why most thinking people can't take the pro-gun position as anything but laughable.

What's that supposed to mean, if not to imply that "thinking people" don't support private ownership of firearms, and only a minority of said "thinking people" are unwilling to dismiss the opinion of those who do as "laughable"? Was it not your intention to dismiss supporters of private firearms ownership as being non-"thinking people"? And if so, how is this not insulting?

And if it wasn't intended to be insulting, why say it in the first place? Unless you're just backpedaling because you don't want to take responsibility for a remark that was intended to be offensive. Which would be pretty fucking yellow in my book; if you're going to dish out insults, the least you can do is commit to them.

[jgraz]

114. Apparently it is too much to ask

You want to attribute certain characteristics to me, so you're applying your own (incredibly stretched) interpretation to what I said.

I've never backed away from an insult in my life. In fact, I'll make it perfectly clear: people who make proteus' argument are dumbasses who shouldn't be trusted with a sharpened stick, let alone a handgun. Good enough for you?

No gun control advocate wants to see people victimized. And trying to pretend that wasn't a direct insult is -- as you say -- "pretty fucking yellow in my book".

[slackmaster]

40. Why didn't you simply address what proteus_lives wrote rather than insulting him?

Can you answer that?

[jgraz]

41. So I should quietly accept his attacks without saying anything

Doesn't that go against the whole philosophy of the pro-gun agenda?

[GreenStormCloud]

49. No, it doesn't go against our philosopy on verbal attacks.

Because we who are armed have the greater responsibility in avoiding violence, we do indeed teach that the armed person is to attempt to de-escalate a confrontation, and we are to walk away from a confrontation if possible. So if we are being called names, we don't answer in kind, at least not in person.

[jgraz]

56. That may be your philosophy, but it's certainly not the prevailing sentiment here

Many of the pro-gun folks have demonstrated a clear preference for violent resolutions of conflicts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=228128&mesg_id=229325
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=228128&mesg_id=229767
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=228128&mesg_id=233337

That's just from one thread. You can find many, many more examples on these "Hoo Dawgy! Sum'un got shot!" posts.

[GreenStormCloud]

110. That philosopy is taught, by law, in ALL Texas Concealed Handgun classes.

Further, many of us, including one regular gunnie poster in this same thread, have stated that we will be quite happy if we NEVER have to shoot anyone. But I am completely prepared to shoot another human if that is the only way to stop them from immediately harming my family or me. There is a difference between being prepared to do something like that if needed, and desiring to do it. You seem to be unable to recognize that difference.

[slackmaster]

55. I don't view what he wrote (in that particular post at least) as an attack

If you feel otherwise, that's OK.

[jgraz]

58. Saying someone would prefer people to be victimized is not an attack?

On what planet?

[Merchant Marine]

75. He said you'd prefer

for them to be unarmed. Which is true, you've said multiple times that people should rely on the police rather than arms.

The victimization is the result of being disarmed. The period between call and police response is the period during which the unarmed citizen is a victim of the criminal and at his or her questionable mercy.

[slackmaster]

86. It seems to me that is an accurate depiction of your point of view

You just don't seem to care about the people who would be victimized.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. That, and as the creator of the following artwork put it:

[jgraz]

102. And you don't care about toddlers shooting each other

See, we can both play this ridiculous game.

[viscrente]

133. Hmmm

Being a slightly conservative democrat I could always say: If you don't trust by right to keep a gun, then why should I trust your right to have a choice? (on abortion)