Political Discussions
Here we go... Constitutional rights out the window again
Posted by csiunatc • 2/26/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: impeach obama
abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
Assault weapons ban to be reinstated.
Thats great, no assault rifles, only 10 bullets in a gun. Sounds like a much safer world.
Please Mr. President. Let me know when you think that the criminals out there killing people are expected to comply.
User Comments
-
Damn! How the hell am I supposed to hunt rabbits without an assault rifle!!! Sonofa... -
Seriously, I haven't read much about this but it seems Eric Holder is the only one saying this, and he is relating the relationship of assault weapons to the violence in Mexico, saying this in a news conference post capture of more than 50 alleged members of the Sinaloa Cartel yesterday. I doubt it's worth worrying about as it's obvious that congress, not wanting to get the people who actually think owning an assault rifle is a constitutional right angry, isn't about to pass anything like this unless there is proof that this certain type of weapon is singularly responsible for certain criminal actions.-
Thats complete BS,
The mexicans are using "FULLY AUTOMATIC" which is by all accounts very hard to get in America.
They are also using grenades, Bazookas, Rocket launchers, and other military weapons. Which again. Isn't something you pick up at your local guns R us. -
If that is the case, I'm being an asshole to him, which by all means he would deserve being that he is using false claims to support his case.
-
he hasn't even made a case yet that is the point.
-
95% of the weapons fueling the Mexican drug cartel war are being bought at American gun shows where you aren't required to supply ID.
-
-
Can you say "Virginia Tech" or "Columbine?" I knew you could.
-
Yeah, gun laws sure helped there. THOSE ARE GUN FREE ZONES!. The gunmen weren't allowed to pring a pea popper in there.
In columbine, the shooters weren't even allowed to own weapons. Gun laws prohibited that completely.
Yeah, gun laws sure saved a lot of lives there. -
The guns were purchased at gun shows and at a gun shop.
-
Yes, they were. By kids too young to own handguns..
-
I love the logic. take guns away from people so they are defenseless against criminals. I mean criminals don't care either way. -
The ones at fault at virginia tech are the decision makers that prohibited sstudents from legally carry a weapon to defend themselves.
If guns are so dangerous. How come we always see mass shootings in Gun free zones? Schools. Malls?
IF guns are indeed so dangerous. how come we don't see it at an NRA convention or a gun show.
Actually, I would LOVE to see someone try it at an NRA convention. Guess who ends up on "americas deadest criminals"
-
-
In Switzerland they issue citizens an assault rifle, and expect you to defend the nation if it is attacked. That may be compulsion (no irrational fear this time--markstoneman) but its cheaper than a standing army. Saves them enough for a pretty good healthcare system.-
Swtizerland is a neutral country. With a strong history of a civil defense force. So it has to do with their basic premise to hold a strong defense without having a large standing army.
It's worked pretty well for a long time. But you are right, citizens can be issued assault rifles.
In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million
Population : 7,700,200
Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.
stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html -
They also have a fairly homogenous population, which makes a big difference.
-
I do like using Switzerland as a prime example of good gun laws, good gun use.
Of course, it is a different culture over there. -
A "homogenous population" is less inclined to kill one another?! Oh wow.
-
Actually, yeah. It's weird like that - but countries/regions where the population is largely homogeneous in race and religion the violent crime rates go down.
-
Mexico is largely Mestizo and largely Roman Catholic...
-
Yes, but Mexico is also largely corrupt in many ways. Homogenization isn't the only factor - but it does factor in.
-
The USA is corrupt in many ways as well. Maybe that's the common correlation.
-
You might want to check out the suicide situation in Switzerland before you get too excited about a weapon in every household.
www.lakewyliepilot.com/428/story/282949.html -
@isonomist: You argue against universal military service in one thread and for it here. Having our cake and eating it too?
-
Homogenous population Sati.
How about you atleast do a google before you make sweeping statements.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480493/Proposed-Swiss-immigration-laws-ris...
20+% of the swiss population are resident aliens.
They have 4 official languages
Oh yeah, THATS Homogenous alright. -
Windroot.. From your article.
"Switzerland's overall suicide rate is comparable to other European countries, according to a study by Killias and researchers of the University of Lausanne. But the proportion of firearm suicides is higher in Switzerland than in many European countries, it said."
So you are saying that sucicide METHOD Is the problem. Not the actual suicide, which is no higher than the surrounding areas? And lower than for instance JApan, which have EXTREMELY rigourous gun laws?
Is someone more dead if they shoot themselves than if they jump off an cliff? there are plenty of those in Switzerland too you know -
the difference is that the one is EXCLUSIVELY military, and EXCLUSIVELY defensive. As in defending the homeland, rather than corporate interests.
-
-
Cooper is right though, this isn't even on the table right now.
-
The attourney general made a very direct statement as to what they are going to do. And that isn't relevant?
That means that he doesn't know what he is doing. (In which case he should be canned immediately) -
He can say what he wants about it - that doesn't mean that it's on the table, or that it'll go through.
-
-
The lack of street violence might also be traced to less economic oppression, less restrictive drug laws (therefore less organized crime) greater civil liberties, better education, cleaner air and water (therefore better mental health) and, yes a less bloodthirsty culture.
-
You can dual wield a pair of AK-47's, but it won't help you against a sniper. Lot of good those 20-round clips are gonna do you. -
Going back to the OP, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the right to own assault weapons. There are a lot of weapons that are illegal and assault weapons should be in that list.
-
I actually wrote a post on the second amendment interpretations two days ago (hint*go read it*hint*
)
I agree with Sati to an extent - and, only because I don't believe that the founding fathers had any notions of the types of weapons that we use today as personal weapons.
Now, Erik brought up a good point on m blog post about needing equally powerful weapons if we were to actually defend ourselves and our country against tyranny - but by that point all weapons would be banned by whatever dictator anyway, rendering the entire amendment moot.
So we'd all be using illegal weapons.-
I do consider the right to bear arms an essential civil liberty. That said the 2nd amendment is rather ambiguous about individual gun ownership. Interesting that the same 'strict constitutionalists' who demonize Earl Warren were willing to take the same liberty in interpreting the 2nd amendment in striking down the DC gun ban. Not complaining about the verdict mind you, just pointing out the obvious discrepancy.
-
Yeah - the second amendment. Man - it's like the bane of all our constitutional amendments. It's the only "right" that is subject to regulation, it's the only right we can't quite figure out, it's the only right (in the first 10) that causes massive controversy...
I outlined my opinions on the interpretations in my blog post (I'm lazy, don't feel like posting it here ) but I also included some legal interpretations in the source citations at the end. When you get a chance, check it out. -
i think it is of note that the amendment contains the wording "well regulated"
-
Well regulated militia.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That could be interpreted as a people - the citizens, be well versed in militia, including the ability to use arms. In order to do that, we have to be able to own, and use firearms. -
Right, militia, but there is still regulation going on. Though it should be noted that such militias were run by the states, and therefore not at the federal level necessarily. Which brings to mind the other funny irony of that SC decision--the anti-states rights nature of it. lmao
-
-
To me, this is just a foolish idea. Guns don't kill people - people kill people. Cliche, but true. For example, Wisconsin has the highest guns per household rate in the nation. However, we have the second lowest gun-related deaths and that would be the lowest if the city of Milwaukee were excluded from the data. Why? Perhaps it is because of the culture of Wisconsin, or perhaps the fact that we receive adequate hunter's safety training and that is what we primarily use the guns for. It is true that guns are powerful and, in devious hands, can injure people. However banning guns only prohibits a directly worded Constitutional right. Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
-
Assault rifles are protected in the Constitution? Tanks too, I suppose? In case anyone missed Scalia's ruling last year, he and the other members of the majority interpreted the Second Amendment to be about an individual right to bear arms. He also affirmed the right of the state (in the generic sense, not just the states) to regulate the ownership and use of weapons. Read his decision. That is the current constitutional law of the land.
If you can't find the decision, you can always suffer through my own reaction to the decision last summer here: markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/learning-to-accept-the-courts-decisio... -
People keep talking about how the second amendment is so unclear, and then they go into the debate about what the "regulated militia is"...
Those two words are the ONLY thing the entire debate is about... Let's remove them and see what we get.
A Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The last part of the sentence is clear enough. It doesn't state what a well regulated militia is. What it DOES state crystal clear is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"..
Infringed.. it doesn't even say Abolished, removed, cancelled. Taken away.. It clearly says it shouldn't even be nibbled on.
Anything unclear about that? Not to me, seems about as simple as it gets.
The whole argument as to whether they intended assault rifles that obviously didn't exist then.. Brings a very dangerous precedent.
All bloggers out there. Remember that free speech can't have meant internet, radio, or television either then. Those didn't exist either.
There is nothing unclear about the second amendment. Only politics that do it's damndest to make it unclear. And the only reason for that is to... you guessed it..
Infringe the right to keep and bear arms.-
Okay, so if you kill a bear, you get to keep his arms.
-
The right to keep and arm bears
Love that one. -
Again, I refer you to Scalia's own argument, extreme by most standards, but not extreme enough for this nation's extremists, since he recognized the rights of communities to regulate, and he paid some head to the changed technological circumstances. Of course, the logic of "common sense" literalism dictates otherwise, but if not even a strict constructionist like Scalia went there, you know something's screwy.
-
[duplicate]
-
Even the opinions of the Supreme Court change over time. That SC ruled gives us the law today. If we disagree with a ruling, we should not simply except it. We need to live with it for now but can attempt to change it in the future. -
@xmarks: (1) I referred to the decision, because I found it really strange that it was being discussed with no reference to it. This was the first time the court ruled on the decision's meaning, decoupling the "militia" part of it and elevating it to an individual right in the process.
(2) I disagreed with the decision, because I do not see the phrase as an individual right, and I understand that the law of the land can change over time; however, the Supreme Court does not reverse itself on a dime, nor should it. It takes many, many years or even generations for really big changes.
(3) Right now this issue is being used by the far right as a partisan club to beat their opponents over the head with and do some political fundraising, because it is the one issue that attracts more single-issue voters than any other. People who worry about their guns enough to base all of their votes on this issue need to chill. No one is taking away their weapons for sport and self-defense, though they can lose their ability to make private war.
(4) Of course, the NRA will tell you differently, because this issue makes for more robust fund-raising than does their major raison d'etre: gun safety, shared interests in sport, etc.
(5) There are also the ideologues who believe citizens should be able to have tanks and everything else to defend itself against the government. I am skeptical about the possibility of rational discourse with such people. -
All bloggers out there. Remember that free speech can't have meant internet, radio, or television either then. Those didn't exist either.
Actually the free speech issues and freedom of the press issues have come to a debate over the invention of new technologies.
What speech is protected? What speech is dangerous? What speech can be monitored? How?
With cell phones, facebook, myspace online bullying, forums, blogs etc and so forth a lot of questions have been raised about free speech parameters.
But that said, the amendment does include the words "well regulated" thus changing the meaning of the amendment and the following interpretations.
Those two words while annoying, aren't arbitrary. -
Those darned facts will keep getting in the way, won't they?
-
1. There is nothing that states that speech can't be monitored. Regardless of what kind that is.
As far as well regulated goes. What that interpretation means, doesn't interfere with "shall not be infringed"
It is pretty clear that regardless of the reasoning behind the addition of the amendment they realized that the infringement on this right would be the same as the elimination of it.
That is how you disarm the population. Not by sending military to everyones door. But by slowly infringing upon the right to keep arms. Removing one right at a time. Where compliance, is easier than becoming a felon.
No assault weapons. - Better to keep your pistols and rifles than being a felon
No semi automatics - Better to keep your rifles and revolvers than being a felon
No Handguns - Better to keep your rifles and shotguns than being a felon
Magazine ban - Better to keep your single shot and breach loaders than being a felon
No high powered rifles - Better to keep your small caliber and shotguns than being a felon
Single shot only - Better to have a single shot than nothing. You can still hunt with a single shot..
And we arrive at no weapons.
Think it can't happen. Check out Great Britain.
As far as freedom of speech. There isn't much of a difference when it comes down to what can be "Well regulated" i posted another thread a while back as you might remember about this exact thing.
As influential as Blogs have gotten between the last electon and this one. Wich cases like the Myspace mother who bullied a child into suicide. What if anything would prevent a "Blogging License". THe European Union is already passing laws infringing on the right to privacy online, and trying to pass more that would prevent anonymous blogging completely.
BLogs weren't around in the late 1700's. Did the founding fathers realize that technology like the printing press wasn't the last step in communication. Or did they simply mean that you should be allowed to say what you want in person. Where you can be closely monitored and stopped?
Elimination of rights is never done in a single step. It's eaten away incrementally. Not by cancelling rights. But by INFRINGING on them more and more.
You should watch Naomi Wolf, THe end of America. (Don't worry -it's anti Bush so you'll be able to live through it) But it does explain how clearly we are on the path to self destruction if these laws aren't protected.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc -
While I agree with you on some points, I'll go back to my original position that the phrase "well regulated militia" has meaning. That is where the debate is.
Although I interpret it one way (Meaning that people have the right to own and bear arms individually, but that they need to remain trained in safety and use - like a militia) others interpret it to mean that only a militia, or military can have weapons.
You can't just ignore that aspect of the amendment.
With regards to free speech and technology - there are laws that forbid say, wiretapping and recording and monitoring of speech. The laws however have been challenged expanded, or debated upon teh advent of every new technology.
Free speech isn't actually free, and we can't actually say what we want to all of the time, when we want to. So even the first amendment is "regulated".
I would say that before jumping off into extremes of either argument one needs to look at the priorities and implications of each regulation (or lack thereof) and assess them individually. We have that ability here, to do just that. -
The problem with "Licensing" as i mentioned in the other thread. Is that it is indeed infringing on the right.
THere are laws for the ownership and use of weapons on the books already. You aren't allowed to threathen anyone, let alone shoot someone just because you feel like it. Just like you can't say anything you wan't.
You can think what you want, but when you bring that thought to bear, affecting others. You are potentially in violation of other laws.
To own, even to carry a weapon, doesn't infringe on anyones rights.
The "regulation" of the militia is already entrenched in the declaration fo independence. Everyone has a right to LIFE, liberty and te pursuit of happiness.
Laws regulate the "militia" just as it regulates the declaration of independence. You may give up your right to life if you threathen the life of others. Which would be self defense.
Like i said in the OP, gun control laws only benefit the criminal, until they comply and stop using assault rifles, and carrying less than 10 bullets in a gun. all it does it place the law abiding family at a disadvantage when someone chooses to infringe on their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I've heard "you don't need more than 10 for self defense" more times than i care to remember. IF that was indeed the case, why isn't the police limited to 10, and banned from having assault rifles?
When seconds count. The police responds in minutes. -
You and I agree on a lot of the points surrounding the second amendment.
But I do disagree on the aspect of licensing as being a restriction or an outright infringement. I don't have to be licensed to purchase a gun for home use - I just have to wait 7 days (background check). I do require a license to carry a concealed weapon - but really you can get your license in one or two days depending on your schedule. It's not very expensive, and does not infringe on my right to own a gun.
Assault weapons bans are an infringement - but the debate from both sides have valid points on the issue. -
You can take the classes in one or two days. Waiting times to get your ccw are much longer. 30 days is normal, 90 days is absolutely not unheard of.
And what is the beneficial reason for it? What crimes are you preventing with this licensing? -
You can take the classes in one or two days. Waiting times to get your ccw are much longer. 30 days is normal, 90 days is absolutely not unheard of.
That must be a state thing. Here as soon as your classes, background check and papers are in order (just a couple of days depending on how long you take to do it all) and you walk in, and get your license. Just like the DMV.
Benefits to licensing is the assurance of safety courses, understanding of gun laws, and background checks preventing felons and mentally disturbed from legally getting their hands on guns and walking around with them.
-
-
The people most upset about not being able to own assault weapons are usually the last people you'd want to own one.
-
Assault weapons for home defence is insane. Where are all those high velocity rounds going to end up. Maybe you did defend your home, maybe you riddled the bad guy but what about the kid, who was half a mile away, you hit with a stray round ?
Yes the UK has very strict fire arm legislation. One of the upsides of that is a very low rate of death by fire arm. Even the police do not carry firearms except for specialist units for anti terror or when tackling criminals who may be armed.-
Low death rate by firearms. Yes, it is compared to the US low. BUt it was comparatively low before the ban was enacted as well. So nothing has improved.
But lets look at the data for it.
This is from www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
The gun control act banning almost all handguns was enacted in 1997/1998, where over 160.000 handguns were turned in to police.
So lets look at what the total number of offences with handguns has developed since the ban.
Total offences with Handguns 1997/1998 to 2007/2008
1997/1998 - 2636
1998/1999 - 2687
2000/2001 - 3685
2001/2002 - 4109
2002/2003 - 5874
2003/2004 - 5144
2004/2005 - 4347
2005/2006 - 4671
2006/2007 - 4175
2007/2008 - 4172
By 2002 the crime rate with weapons that were banned and handed in by law abiding citizens had more than doubled. It has since then declined, but is still more than 58% over the rate the year that guns were banned.
If gun control works, shouldn't that number have dropped?
This is proof positive that the criminals aren't turning in their weapons, they are apparently not having any problems finding guns either.
Someone please explain to me how this works if gun control is so great for the safety of the public. -
First of all, handguns weren't banned. Second, the rise in handgun crimes may have been due to economic conditions. The economy was booming during the 90s and has been stagnant during the 2000s.
-
1. Not banned entirely. But made so difficult to manage that Even the U.K. Olympic shooters in pistol practise overseas because of the hassles to own a handgun in the U.K. NOt even they are allowed to have one, they have to store it at special secure locations, and can't keep it at home.
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2349680/Shooters-call-for-en...
2. Regardless of economic conditions, the GUN crimes increased. So how did this gun legislation help anything?
Between 2000 and 2005 the UK GDP Increased about 25% from 953,576 to 1,209,334 In Millions GBP. So stagnant is hardly the case, considering that this was the time that gun crimes were the highest in this period.
Got ANY Facts to back up those claims? -
This is something where statistics don't matter. I don't want someone in my neighborhood owning assault weapons. Or bombs. Actually, I don't want people in my neighborhood who are so afraid they feel the need to be heavily armed, but there's nothing I can do about that.
-
Maybe they don't want you to have a blog?
This is the constitution, It protects people to do a lot of things that someone else might not like. Freedom of speech is of course the great example.
Maybe your neighbors don't want you to have a blog? -
OK, while I agree with Erik, I need to point out that having a blog or the ability to freely express an opinion isn't the same as owning a weapon that can kill a lot of people with little effort.
Just sayin'. -
No, but removing someones constitutional right because "you don't like it".. is the same.
Ask the mother of the girl that killed herself because of Myspace what she thinks about myspace. And we'll see if you think her feelings should dictate free speech. -
Actually the mother of the girl has no opinion of myspace.
Her opinion resides directly with the cause of the problem - the words of the people who uttered them, and the knowledge that what they were doing to a mentally unstable girl was wrong.
However "not liking" something because of preference and "not liking" something that can kill you are two different things. The first is not a reason to call for action, the second is a valid reason to have the issue debated, at the very least. -
@Csunitic. The figures do tell the tale.
Handguns were banned in the UK (1997) following the Dunblane School shooting news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.s...
Following a change in law like this it is to be expected that offences will rise in the short term as society adjusts to the new legislation. The figures are for offences not just for shootings and will include possession of ammo, war souvenirs, import/ export etc.
It should also be noted that following 1997 UK police have massively targeted gun crime with initiatives like Operation Trident www.stoptheguns.org/index.php The more rigorous the policing the more offences you will catch. -
Still the point is that criminals don't care about gun laws.
-
-
I think the second ad was written when the citizens were fearful of 1.) a national army being used to defend part A of the country while citizens in part B are being attacked and/or 2.) the citizens being afraid of the U.S. government becoming a dictatorship. Either way, having their own guns made them more selfsuficient. Being able to band into local militias also helped.
-
It was also in the days when bearing arms meant to own a musket.
-
It was in the days when owning musket was equal firepower.
-
-
As Renal Failure and others said, you gotta wonder just what these weapons are really good for outside of military conflict.
Separately, check the FBI Crime statistics. The person you are most likely to kill with your gun is 1) a family member or friend; then 2) yourself.
I support responsible gun ownership. If you want a gun, get one. But get some training too.-
I say they ban all weapons. ALL OF THEM. If ever I need to protect myself I'll rely on my ninja skills. If my house is invaded in the middle of the night I'll keep a nail gun... my high speed nail launcher by my bed. Oh and I have three chainsaws. I won't have to get too close because one of them I can attach to a pole for those hard to reach places. In this case the armed hand of my attacker.
I'm ridiculous.
-
-
What I don't get is why the people who are so against weapons being kept at home for self defense don't put a sign in their front yard saying.
"THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE"-
They're mislead by the media. That's the only thing I can come up with. I have nothing against weapons in the home. Most people I know that have them enjoy going to the shooting range. It's their hobby.
-
While some people would like to see all weapons banned, I think with regards to this topic - most people are saying they'd prefer not to have assault weapons in the home.
In all honesty, if my husband and I were to purchase on - I doubt we'd keep it in our home. More likely we'd keep it locked up in a locker elsewhere. We have the guns appropriate for home defense in our home - we don't need semi-auto assault weapons. -
The whole "Assault weapon" is a stupid terminology anyway.
No one is saying anything about the semi automatic hunting rifles. And the only REAL difference is how the handle is shaped.
So now it's down to cosmetics determening what you should and should not have.
In the end, I'll be glad to concede that point. As soon as no criminals have them. Until then, I think it's prudent to not limit the law-abiding to the point where they are outgunned. -
Isn't there also a difference in ammunition and capacity?
And honestly - we agree on a lot of this stuff, but....unless one is taking on a serious gang in a high violence neighborhood are the criminals we're protecting ourselves coming in with such firepower and such high numbers that a regular gun wouldn't suffice?
I can't imagine needing a high powered high capacity gun to fend off one-three home invaders. -
I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert on this but my understanding was that the definition is regarding look of weapon but the weapon is functionally the same as legal weapons.
-
They just don't wan't you shooting your AK up into the sky during a wedding party. That is SO developing nation!
-
-
There are different "definitions".. removable magazines aren't allowed. Magazine capacity isn't allowed. "pistol handles" such as an ar-15, isn't allowed whereas the standard english is. All of this in various combinations. The effect of which is that the best tools are more or less banned already, and this will make it even worse.
I don't know how much combat you've seen Anok. But I'll grab an assault rifle long before i'll grab a pistol to defend me. Pistols are the last resort weapon. What you use when you don't have anything else available.
With pistols, the FBI has a normal HIT ratio of about 20%. That's the FBI.. not a scared Mother, or father trying to defend his/her family.
The best possible weapon for this type of encounter is already extremely hard to get, requiring a class III License, and that is the Short Barreled Rifle.
But we are still back at the two basic problems of this Ban.
1. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED. Again this is the operative part of the amendment. Regardless of anything else, that is what the resolution is. SHALL NOT ..
2. Since no one can argue that criminals are going to follow these laws, the only thing accomplished is to place law abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals.-
I don't know how much combat you've seen Anok. But I'll grab an assault rifle long before i'll grab a pistol to defend me. Pistols are the last resort weapon. What you use when you don't have anything else available.
With pistols, the FBI has a normal HIT ratio of about 20%. That's the FBI.. not a scared Mother, or father trying to defend his/her family.
In combat or high crime area with gang members or Hell's angels shooting all over the place - yes, I would agree. That's just not normally the case.
However you're right, we wouldn't grab a pistol first thing. We'd grab our shotgun(s) - you just have to be able to hit the broadside of a barn to be effective with one of those. -
In an in home situation, you would go with a shot gun?
-
Yup, at the top of the stairs. The suckers aren't going to get anywhere. I have the tactical advantage because of the staircase.
Besides that - for your average podunk home invader the sound of a shot gun sh0shunk! is enough to scare them off save for the psychopaths. (With our baby monitors everywhere it's LOUD) -
Yep shotgun (short barrel) is best for home defence. The problem with an assault rifle is that the rounds could end up anywhere. The rounds go for miles and they go through walls so you could wipe out your next door neighbours by accident. That is why assault weapons should be banned.
-
Plus if you run out of ammo - it doubles as a staff weapon. (OK, it does for me, anyway).
I do worry about something like bullets going through walls. I share walls with my neighbors, and she has two kids. I'd hate to think that I could cause a loss of life over there trying to protect what's over here.
-
-
There was a story on 60 Minutes this evening about the Mexican drug cartel and how they're destroying Mexico. They recently forced the resignation of the mayor of Juarez by threatening to kill an officer every 48 hours until he resigned. They killed two and then he gave in.
Guess where the Mexican drug cartel buys their assault rifles. The United States.-
Strangely, some people (usually on the other side of the aisle) blame the arms trading on demand for arms in Mexico, but the drug wars are supposedly not caused by demand for drugs in the US.
-
-
1. Walls don't stop bullets, Unless they are stone, brick or concrete. In which case they stop rifles as well for the most.
2. People always confuse the penetration with the caliber. Whereas there is a general relationship, there isn't a direct relationship. A realitively "weak" 9x19 Mm penetrates further through walls than a relatively powerful .45 for instance.
3. Frangible bullets and especially the modern metal powder ones completely eliminates overpenetration. Meaning that there is almost zero risk of penetrating hard surfaces.
Shotguns,
A shotgun loaded for "indoor safety" has to use some kind of birdshot. Which makes it largely useless for penetrating far enough to reach vital organs and effectively shut down an attack.
0 00 and 000 buckshot are the only ones effective enough, and they will easily penetrate every interior wall in a house. Somewhere in the range of 7-9 sheets of drywall.
As far as "shooting neighbors" polybore.
Please find me an article where an assault rifle used for home defense has done what you describe. Penetrated walls and hurt someone.
Yes, this could happen. Theoretically. But now we have to look at the real facts.
CHanges of this happening in an apartment building are very low. Rounds don't penetrate concrete or brick very well. And "joint" walls are almost never just drywall.
It's a good fear argument, but it falls in the realm of lottery odds. Chances of getting killed by a stray bullet increase exponentially when it is criminals shooting it out on the streets. And as mentioned before, they aren't going to turn in their weapons anyway.-
Erm...people in ghettos are killed by stray bullets from driveby's penetrating through their walls all the time.
It is a problem.
And birdshot does exactly what it needs to do - stops the attacker from attacking. So you can call for help. It isn't all just about "killing" the bad guy - it's about protecting your family with the appropriate amount of force.
I can see how, form the pro-regulation side this argument seems very aggressive, very pro-violence. There's a hint of over-reaction in it. Most of us are not dealing with gangbangers and mafia shootouts where firepower like that is needed. We're just not. We might have a home invader - one or two people either trying to rob (who will run at the sight of sound of a gun) or who are there to do worse, but can easily be stopped by a shotgun full of birdshot. They're not superhumans.
But let me ask you a question - since the effectiveness of an assault weapon seems to be your point, and the ineffectiveness of a pistol or other handgun seems to be your point - why shouldn't we have a license to carry a concealed weapon of any kind (shotguns, rifles, assault weapons, AK-47's etc)?
Where's the line? -
Drivebys...
Yes, it Happens, what i wanted to know is how often you know of a self defense homeowner who has managed to kill a neighbor. Not how often criminals kill innocents. If anything, that would be an argument on my side.
Fact remains, in a defense situation, rarely if ever are shots fired in an up angle, Most shots are fired from shoulder height, aimed at mid torso, leaving the bullet to strike the ground about 10-15 yards later.
Drivebys are done from a seated position in a car, shooting at standing people, at an angle upwards. Which is why they go flying like you describe. As mentioned before, this is a crime problem. Not a problem with law abiding citizens defending themselves.
Birdshot...
Shot a lot of people with Birdshot? It doesn't do much to stop an attacker who is determined. And it actually might not even penetrate a heavy leather jacket. Something you should consider as soon as the weather gets cold. (Cheney shot a man in the face, and it didn't kill him remember?... Guess what he was loaded with.)
Don't be fooled in thinking that a hit, even a lethal hit will stop anyone immediately. Thats a Hollywood myth. This is controlled pairs and faliure drills are taught. On top of that, an assailant on certain drugs will not stop barring a complete neural shutdown. Birdshot won't accomplish that.
Here is a video of someone being shot during the Gotheburg riots with a 9mm hollowpoint +P load, Low chest hit, through and through cavity. And the guy is still running. Had this been a gunfight, he coould still be shooting back.
The actual footage starts at 1.17. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj6zu8j3YkY&feature=related
There is plenty of footage like this. People taking several hits and still fighting. The weaker the caliber, the greater risk of this occuring.
This is why the more powerful weapons are neccesary for self defense.
Where is the line?
1. We shouldn't have to have a licence to carry ANYTHING, As long as criminals are packing assault rifles, normal citizens shouldn't be handicapped in defending themselves.
There is already a license to carry weapons issued to everyone. It's called the second amendment. Just like with free speech, The right is guarranteed, even though abuse of it carries with it ramafications. There is no difference in my book. Carry what you will, use it responsibly or face the consequences. -
Yes, it Happens, what i wanted to know is how often you know of a self defense homeowner who has managed to kill a neighbor. Not how often criminals kill innocents. If anything, that would be an argument on my side.
I was responding to your argument that bullets can't go through walls. They can. Most homes that I know of don't have assault weapons in them to be used for self defense here. (They are banned) So I have no idea how many homeowners could accidentally shoot their neighbor in a self defense situation, as that scenario isn't feasible here.
But you're making it sound as if a home invader is in combat mode and some sort of superhuman unable to be stopped by a shotgun or pistol. That sort of panicky argument works against the pro-second amendment movement. It just sounds over the top.
1. We shouldn't have to have a licence to carry ANYTHING, As long as criminals are packing assault rifles, normal citizens shouldn't be handicapped in defending themselves.
I was hoping you'd have gotten what Iwas getting at without me spelling it out. This argument: "With pistols, the FBI has a normal HIT ratio of about 20%. That's the FBI.. not a scared Mother, or father trying to defend his/her family." works against the right to carry.
If professionals can't properly or effectively use regular handguns and arms - why on earth should anyone carry one? I mean - I guess we could all walk around with assault rifles and military war-grade arms but that's a bit overkill, don't you think?
(knowing your previous argument that gun safety courses are not what they're cracked up to be) Would you feel safe knowing that a scared housewife was carrying around a weapon of that magnitude? I wouldn't be thrilled about myself, actually.
None of our amendments outlined in the constitution are absolute and without regulation. Free speech has regulations, religions have regulations (and legal or non legal tax statuses), the fourth amendment has limitations, and etc and so forth. Even the third amendment has regulations and laws to contend with.
I think it's prudent to be aware and accept that the opposing view has some validity to their argument, and find the best way to make a compromise.
-
-
A home invader in combat mode IS a "superhuman" compared to what hollywood depicts in pictures.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs&feature=related
It's gruesome. But it shows what you and most people don't know.
7 shots at close range before the person stops. 5 from the right, 2 from the left officer.
Unless you have direct hits to the central nervous system, the effect ISN'T immediate. You have to hit either brain or spine. Anything else will NOT stop someone immediately.
Even a direct heart hit takes several seconds to stop an assailant. Double lung penetration, 15-20 seconds.
Most of this time, they don't even feel pain. And are more than capable of continuing to fight.
As far as feeling safe knowing that a scared housewife had that weapon.
Yes, i feel safer knowing that people are armed. Every gun that is sold puts another "what if" status on the streets. Meaning that a criminal doesn't know who is armed, and what house has weapons. And I will never feel that the dead and raped woman is somehow moraly superior to the alive woman with a dead would be rapist at her feet.
As far as the 20% hit rate. That is proof positive that a 10 round ban isn't a great idea. And the video i Posted shows why you need every bit of firepower you can get.
My arguments against gun safety courses is that they are useless in what they teach. You don't learn gun safety at these, you learn it by doing. over and over again. These mandated CCW courses are too short and too shallow to do any good. And they instill a false sense of control that is more dangerous than helpful.
But that is not the place of the state to mandate. A responsible gun owner should do it on their own. Or face the consequences of not being safe.
The compromise, is that those who abuse the right. Lose it and pay the price for it. Wether that abuse is by being unsafe and hurting someone, or by committing a crime. Guns should carry absolute liability with them. You should never be allowed to claim an "oops" unless that oops was completely unforseeable.
In the end i don't think that you solve anything by disarming law abiding citizens.
And i don't think that the validity of the opposing argument outweighs the simple fact i've been stating all along. As soon as the Criminals comply with no assault weapons, and limited magazine capacities. I'll be happy to impose them on those that follow the laws. Until then I simply feel it being irresponsible and dangerous to handicap someone from protecting themselves.-
It's gruesome. But it shows what you and most people don't know.
Considering that I've been assaulted in my own home (as well as out of my home on more than a few occasions), and defended and stopped the man with only my two hands and no weapons - I'd say you're reaching.
It's not "gruesome" and it's not the norm. This type of argument isn't helping anyone who supports the second amendment. It makes us all sound paranoid and violent.
As far as the 20% hit rate. That is proof positive that a 10 round ban isn't a great idea. And the video i Posted shows why you need every bit of firepower you can get.
Then why bother having handguns at all? What's the point? Let's just all walk around with AK-47's under our trenchcoats. Come on - I support the right to bear arms - but this is too much. It's unnecessary and it makes the second amendment supporters sound delusional.
I would not want a nervous, overly sensitive, or untrained nit-wit walking around with a gun that can wipe out a bunch of people just by pointing and spraying.
Nor would I want ex-cons walking around legally with guns, or psychopaths or mentally unstable people. That's just absurd.
And i don't think that the validity of the opposing argument outweighs the simple fact i've been stating all along.
Yes, yes it does. When valid arguments come into play - they do outweigh something that was written 200 some odd years ago, that hasn't been appropriately interpreted as of yet, and has the potential to cause a great deal of harm.
We can't sell cigarettes with out licenses, or smoke them in most public places, but it's OK to sell and brings guns without any regulations?
-
-
Did you even watch the video? How does you having a brawl come into any effect on this? That you believe birdshot is "enough" shows that you don't actually know this. Why don't you check what the US military loads with, The police, see if ANY of them use birdshot, and if not, ask why.
Don't care if you've beaten someone with a stick. Thats hardly relevant for the decapacitating effect of bullets. Would you say?
It is the norm, people not hit in the central nervous system do not stop immediately. But don't take my word for it. Go read up on self defense shooting, and what applies. Don't know how much combat experience you have, but since i know how much i have. I'll stand on that experience.
Why use handguns, Because they are portable, and better than nothing. And well trained it can get the job done. Even not well trained, you might be able to scare the assailant off.
Ask around and see what police carry, none of them are / or were limited to 10 rounds in their sidearms. If they need more than that, why should a civillian defending themselves need less? Is the argument that civvies should be better at CQB than the police?
Why not carry rifles under trenchcoats, Mostly becasuse it is damn heavy and uncomfortable. Subguns are better, but still not something you would want to haul around with you all day every day. It's just not practical.
Felons, Have already given up large portions of their constitutional rights, Such as owning weapons and voting. I'm not entirely FOR this, I don't think that someone who cheats on their taxes shouldn't be allowed to defend their person. loved ones and property. But people who have committed violoent crimes in the past, sure.
You don't want nervous, nit wits with guns. Ok, look again, they are called criminals, and they are doing it now.
The argumen i'm making, if you paid attention. Is that i'll be supporting stricter regulation as soon as the criminals will comply with it. Until then, restrictions only favor the criminals.
And you can't sell guns without a license either. Nor can you have them in a lot of places. Whats the difference?
And what VALID arguments, The only arguments you've made are your feelings. What difference does it make if someone nervous has a gun. Until they use it irresponsibly, that has absolutely no effect on you.-
I didn't have a brawl - I was assaulted by an in home invasion - a rapist to be exact.
I was able to STOP him with just my own two hands - I'm sure that had I shot him with a shotgun he would have been immobilized a lot sooner. I didn't need a weapon - I didn't have to shoot him to make him stop - that's my point. Two little tiny hands on a half pint girl was able to stop an attacker dead in his tracks - a gun shot to the face would definitely do the trick.
This is what birdshot does to the body:
Here are some images of what a shotgun can do to a human, there not pretty and I won't post them here. They're also NOT harmless - we're not shooting daisies ammunition:
images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=shotgun+wounds&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
I was actually talking to my husband about this - and since his job in the military was weapons directly I'll say this:
He agree with me - and would NOT keep an assault weapon in he home, and would NOT use it for home defense unless there was an army coming down on our house.
He also agrees that it's overkill - and showing some video of some crazed person dos not a reality make.
You're going way overboard with this - It's not necessary to defend your home with an assault weapon - it's not necessary to carry them on the street.
Guess what - all the gangs that use them carry them everywhere - knowing that an opposing gang has the same weapons as them does NOT stop them from shooting each other. -
I didn't say that having one would stop them from trying, i said i don't feel that the government should handicap you based on non existent data.
Nice that you grabbed a picture without the accompanying text from the site.
Even the #4 heavy bird shot load at 3 yards did not penetrate sufficiently to reliably stop an attacker, remember the FBI defines minimum acceptable penetration as 12 inches with 18 inches preferred.
Overall Conclusion
Birdshot is woefully inadequate for home defense and should not be used except for target practice and bird hunting.
It also goes on to prove exactly what I said, To achieve acceptable penetration, you have to use Buckshot.
Since you use this for proof, I'll post the link to the article. That by the way agrees 100% with what i've said so far.
www.shadonet.com/2008/01/choosing-between-birdshot-buckshot-or-slugs-for-sh...
And if he was a weapons specialist in the Army, are you telling me that he doesn't know about the 9mm to .45 controversy for instance. Or the 6.8mm upgrade discussion. Which are exactly what I am talking about.
If HE doesn't want an assault rifle in his home, thats perfectly fine. Never said everyone had to have one. I said something along the lines of
...... "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...... if I recall correctly
-
-
www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/NEWS/611290331
Newburgh — An old farmhouse in a residential part of the Town of Newburgh near Orange Lake was the scene of a wild home invasion in which ski-masked intruders were turned back by shotgun blasts that ripped through walls and panicked neighbors.
www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm
For home defense, a shotgun is superior to a handgun in terms of being able to stop a violent intruder as quickly as possible. A reliable, well-made, pump-action shotgun can usually be purchased for less than the cost of a handgun of comparable quality. Also, inexpensive birdshot ammunition, typically used for training applications, is about three-fourths the cost, round for round, of comparable handgun ammunition.
Most people typically choose a shotgun for home defense for one of three general reasons: 1) to minimize wall penetration to reduce the danger to innocent third parties in case of a missed shot, 2) to maximize wound trauma to stop a vicious assailant as quickly as possible, or 3) because a shotgun does not require as much skill as a handgun to put lead on target.
A shotgun pellet produces wound trauma by crushing the tissue it comes into direct contact with as it penetrates. In order to produce wound trauma that will be effective in quickly stopping an attacker, the pellets must penetrate his body deeply enough to be able to pass through a vital cardiovascular structure and cause rapid fatal hemorrhage to quickly deprive the brain of oxygenated blood needed to maintain consciousness.
www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/30/selecting-a-gun-for-home-defense/
My ideal home defense firearm is a 12 gauge pump action shotgun with an 18″ barrel and a magazine capacity of 6 shells or more, such as the Remington 870 XCS Marine Magnum. 12 gauge is the most common shotgun gauge these days, and 12 gauge shells are amazingly effective when loaded with 00 buckshot (pronounced “double ought buckshot”). The 18″ barrel is the minimum length generally allowed by law, and does not make the gun too cumbersome inside a home. The pump action is the pinnacle of reliability, and makes it easy to keep the gun stored safely but ready to use at a moment’s notice. The gun will be amazingly effective at close range, and the risk of over penetration through exterior walls and subsequent injury to neighbors is lower than with a rifle or handgun.-
And this is from the Freeper site, in case you think it's biased:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844974/posts
Don Davis said gun sales at his Westside store have doubled since the latest terrorism alert. He said the $599 AK-47 is a top seller.
The Bushmaster delivers a high-velocity round very accurately with little kick. The AK-47 will give you a jolt, but with that kick you get a larger round capable, they say, of going through a car's engine block.
Just what you need to stop terrorists invading your subdivision.
Of course, some people might end up with guns simply for home protection. And if that's the case, Chance says, an old-fashioned shotgun might do the trick.
"A 12-gauge is a nice gun to have in the house. You don't have to aim the gun. You just point it in the general vicinity, and you're actually going to hit what you're pointing toward, because (the shot) scatters."
even gun shop owners do NOT recommend assault weapons fro home defense. -
Oh i know plenty that do. But Some don't i'm sure.
An Ak-47 will NOT penetrate an engine block. I know this from personal experience. If it did it would be (1) AP ammo, which you shouldn't use for defense anyway.. And (2) an aluminum block. Then, MAYBE you'll get penetration, I still doubt you'll get through penetration, and even if you did, it would be useless on the other side. but you wont get it through a normal engine block. This is a HOllywood myth again. PLEASE, go find me more than some gun-dealers sales pitch to prove that statement. A picture perhaps?
AK-47's are stopped by Class III body armor, and trust me when i say that if you had to carry more on you than an ENGINE Block, people wouldn't wear them. This... again is BS.
The man is a complete nincompoop. And i'll tell you why. At under 30 feet. The normal shotgun has VERY LITTLE Scattering effect. The average spread is about 5.5 - 7 inches. You have to get a coach gun to get more than that. And to get the effect he is talking about. You would need a sawed off shotgun. Which by the way are illegal...
over 90% of all encounters will happen at 7 yards or less. So the myth that "you can't miss with a scattergun" is in lack of a better word. BS.
That also doesn't take into consideration that a big "spread" will reduce the number of pellets hitting the aiming point. If you "can't miss" then very few pellets will strike the target since a bunch will miss completely.
This is why 30 yards is often considered a max effective range for a normal sshotgun, that is one with a LONG barrel and chokes. After that, there aren't enough pellets hitting the vital areas.
You can find idiots making any statement, find facts next time. -
Erik - the website you provided gave the same information - that the scatter is perfect for home defense and inexperienced people.
The website you provided RECOMMENDS shotguns for home defense because it is so good at stopping intruders.
As does the NRA, and other gun rights groups, ammunition and self defense groups.
Shotguns - not assault weapons. Not one of them is claiming that you won't be able to stop an intruder using a shotgun because the person will just come at you after receiving shot after shot. The website you cite donly states that b irdshot won't do enough damage to kill a person - taht's it.
you have nothing to support your argument.
There are not a lot of homicidal kamikaze maniac home intruders that require assault weapons for home defense. There is no reason that a person needs to have a weapon with the "spray and pray" capabilities to defend their home from the average intruder.
You don't need to empty an entire clip to stop an intruder.
The picture I provided above came from the website you cited (or he used the photos from elsewhere - whatever it's ballistics).
I have provided facts, and the facts you provided supports mine. -
But you will need assault weapons for an ill-planned standoff in your home when the new world order gov'ment comes to git ya. Remember what G. Gordon Liddy said: Aim for the head, because agents wear body armor.
-
The average spread is about 5.5 - 7 inches.
Do you know how big of a hole that is in the human body? And you think that's not going to stop someone?!
When was the last time you were shot with a shotgun? -
1994. Why?
And it's not one big hole. It's a series of pellets. The picture you showed was at 3 yards. At that range it is more of a solid mass. And even then the "mass" penetrates no more than 5 inches of ballistics Gel.
That gel didn't have clothes, There were no bone, just "flesh" which simulates soft tissue only.
Edited to add,
Yes everyone thinks that Shotguns are good for home defense.
NONE Of them recommend Birdshot.. And when you DON'T use birdshot, you have penetration problems again.
You might find this site interesting.
www.theboxotruth.com/
It deals with nothing BUT penetration in walls etc. -
www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney/
Armstrong said Cheney was firing a 28-gauge shotgun, a small-bore weapon commonly used for hunting birds.
Cheney, an avid hunter, was shooting at a covey of quail on the Armstrong Ranch near Kingsville, about 30 miles southwest of Corpus Christi. The ranch's owner, Katharine Armstrong, said Whittington was about 30 yards from Cheney when the vice president fired.
Armstrong, who was with the group when the accident occurred, said Whittington was "peppered" with birdshot. Pellets hit him in the face and chest, but he never lost consciousness, she said. (Watch how a witness described the accident -- 6:34)
The wounded man, 78-year-old Harry Whittington, was in intensive care at a Corpus Christi hospital after being hit by several pellets of birdshot Saturday afternoon, hospital spokesman Peter Banko told CNN.
After being peppered with birdshot - from thirty yards away - in the face and chest - he was in need of hospitalization and intensive care.
It hurts and causes damage. It does not need to kill to be effective.
And yes, several of the sites that I linked to do recommend birdshot for uneasy gun owners. The site you linked argues against it - but many hunters and and gun enthusiasts will argue just the opposite. It may not penetrate, but it can drop you from the pain - particularly if catch it in the face.
-
-
You can have all the guns you want. Just stay away from me and my cat!
-
Don't worry if it's Anok..
She uses loads that wont even take out a 79 Year old lawyer when shot in the neck and face.
Your cat is safe.. Unless it breaks into my home armed and looking for trouble. -
It doesn't have to kill to be effective.
If you got shot in the face with birdshot - you would stop. -
Ah, the Headshot. The trademark of those that don't know better.
Find me ONE reputable defensive shooting coach that recommend you aim for the face as a primary shot placement.
And I mean primary, not when everything else is hidden or otherwise unavailable.
If you load up so that your only hope is to pull off a trick shot when you are most likely going to be in the first, last and only time in your life where you have to shoot at someone. You are living in fantasy land.
Even well trained military and law enforcement are trained to shoot center mass at all times.
Again, Cheney shot a 79 year old that wasn't jacked up on either drugs or adrenaline. What stopped him proably won't stop someone who is 22 and loaded up to the eyeballs on some street pharmacy prescription. -
Funny... I had a grandmother who could only do headshots on the range. Couldn't hit center mass on the target, just kept hitting the head.
-
You couldn't get a head shot on my cat. She's pretty quick.
Of course if you went after her with a semi-automatic assault weapon, you could blow her into unrecognizable bits.
Like I said, stay away. -
I never said aim for the face - I said catch it in the face. With a shotgun - that's a very good possibility and, by the looks of shotgun wounds that I linked to above most people do "catch it in the face" when confronted or in the way of a shotgun.
And if the only person it won't stop is a hopped up maniac then you're still doing good. Because a hopped up maniac probably won't be stopped with anything less than a dump-truck killer, anyway.
But the average person will not fare so well.
And, the peppering of birdshot sent that 78 year old man into intensive care - from thirty yards away. Up close and personal it'll hurt a helluva a lot more.
In any case - the debate over birdshot VS buckshot has no bearing on the fact that the shotgun is the recommended gun for home defense. And when using anything heavier than birdshot WILL stop an attacker.
Not an assault weapon. They are not recommended for home defense.
-
-
Yes they are. Many recommend Rifles for home defense. That was something you just made up.
And by all means, If you want to choose the most marginal load, hoping that it will be enough if the time comes. That is your call.
I'd never forgive myself, reading what you've read today, and still choosing a weak load. Especially if it wasn't enough and your family got killed over it.
But thats just me. Should the worst happen, and I need to shoot someone. I'll feel better having the most effective weapon and load.
Not having to second guess something as silly as the load or weapon choice at my family's funeral seems like a good tradeoff to me.-
We do have buckshot - as we hunt.
But quite frankly I lived and defended myself for years without so much as a BB gun. That means close quarter hand to hand or small weapons interaction. If birdshot was what I had, I would be able to use it without a problem. If all it did was stun the attacker, that's all I'd need. The business end of a gun isn't the only part that's good for self defense.
And some people recommend rifles for experienced shooters without worries of bullets going through walls. Shotguns are recommended over rifles for home defense. -
The business end of a gun isn't the only part that's good for self defense...
No, assuming that the attacker isn't shooting at you... If he/she is. I'd prefer not having to try and close to h2h distances.
everyone who keeps a weapons should be an experienced shooter. If you live in a paperwall apartment building, then sure. Get something that will reduce the risks.
Anywhere else, that kinda seals the deal then. Get a rifle and learn how to use it. -
If you stun the person, they won't be shooting.
And yes, I have paper thin walls, and two little girls living on the other side of them, unfortunately. -
You keep telling yourself that...
-
Like I said - I've defended myself with no weapons bigger than a bootknife for my entire life.
I'm used to close fighting. -
Have you ever seen someone on pcp? I'm telling you that stunning them doesn't work very well. Neither do ambulance restraints, 1, 2, or even 3 cops.Get someone on an adrenaline rush and unnatural determination and I'm telling you stunning is not all that effective because they get up as soon as they are down and they can pull the trigger multiple times before they actually go down. -
Yes - PCP, I agree with that.
At that point nothing is going to stop them except for a very extreme weapon. Maybe if you blew their head clean off - or eradicated their limbs they'd stop. Like a zombie.
But that does not mean it's the norm - nor does it mean we should be armed to the hilt "just in case". Becasue it's doubtful that whatever you own or do will work, anyway.
If some crazed PCP person wanders into your home unannounced - the safest thing to do is get out and away from them. Not confront them and try to kill them on your own.
-
-
For those of us who are not American, would someone please explain the uniquely American fascination with getting shot? Doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet..except maybe Somalia. If just one coherant person would explain it to me, I would then finally have one coherent explanation.-
No no, it's the shooting we like, not the getting shot part.
-
Chalk it up to all those A-Team episodes we watched as kids. No pun intended there with "Chalk"
-
-
He fronted a lot of the same work in Illinois and now a .22 with the right clip can be an assault rifle. I guess all the squirrels and rabbits must never fear hillbilly genocide again. Beyond such a ridiculous anti-constitutional law followed by my just as ridiculous response I am not all surprised. This is anti second amendment as it is limiting our rights as citizens. It is limiting our protections. States with conceal weapons permits have had positive results and this favors our own country and principles more than the other response. I don't necessarily think that Obama doesn't love his country, but this anti bill of rights movement is indefinitely anti-American.
-
Environment matters quite a bit in how you view the gun laws. If you live in a high crime rate area, you're probably more inclined to want to be able to protect yourself. Here in Denver, the crime rate is fairly low, although gangs have become a problem in some parts of town. I might want to own a gun or two if I lived in one of those areas.
Maybe the answer is licensing rather than banning. -
For those that are interested in hearing what the Members of the Police and ATF in congressional hearings say about this kind of legislation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&feature=related
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
