Age Old Question

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

So Zona which line do you prefer to use when people have broken into your house or are assaulting you or your family?
Make sure you tell them politely. You wouldn't want to get life for defending yourself from intruding thugs like in the "safe haven" called England?

Everytime someone whispers "gun control," pro-gun Second Amendment fanatics always suggest banning guns won't stop the killings. They'll just find some other weapon to kill people with if they don't have a gun.

So by that same vein of logic, won't Bengalzona find some other means to kill his attackers if needed?

But, I guess using your logic against you means I'm "twisting things around."

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

I guess you mean that if a person(s) break into your house in the middle of the night you should wait until they shoot at you or jump on your back before you have the right to do anything.
IF THEY BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE MALICIOUS INTENT!
If someone illegally enters your house then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't view that person to be very serious threat and deal with them accordingly.

I agree if someone breaks into your house you should be able to deal with them accordingly.

However, the laws vary from state to state.

I live in a so called "stand your ground" state so I can use deadly force outside of my home if I feel my or a family member's life is in danger. I can also use deadly force to save the life of another if I have no other options. In another thread, you stated one might need an assault rifle to protect yourself at longer ranges. In my state if you shoot and kill someone at a range so far away you need an assault rifle to engage them, you could possibly go to jail for murder. Because if they are that far away, they aren't an imminent threat to your life and you still have the ability to extricate yourself from that situation.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

I agree if someone breaks into your house you should be able to deal with them accordingly.

However, the laws vary from state to state.

I live in a so called "stand your ground" state so I can use deadly force outside of my home if I feel my or a family member's life is in danger. I can also use deadly force to save the life of another if I have no other options. In another thread, you stated one might need an assault rifle to protect yourself at longer ranges. In my state if you shoot and kill someone at a range so far away you need an assault rifle to engage them, you could possibly go to jail for murder. Because if they are that far away, they aren't an imminent threat to your life and you still have the ability to extricate yourself from that situation.

So, using my M-14 or my .243 in my house to defend my kids could be illegal?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Quoted from the 2nd link
He is hospitalized with wounds to his face and neck, but his condition is not known.
Your amazement WAS warranted.

Even better link
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2013/01/...er-times-face/
Also states that she had a .38 revolver that held 6 shots.
I don't know why the caliber of the gun means anything, a .22 can be just as deadly as a .45
She fired all 6 shots hitting him 5 times in the face and neck
And yes it does justify my argument no matter how much you want to deny it.
If there was even 1 person with him what do you think she could have done with the EMPTY gun if he decided to go after her for shooting his buddy? The guy was hit FIVE TIMES and still left the house. Tell me again why this magic number of 10 shots is all anyone needs.
Is a situation magically over because someone fires 10 shots?

This is the funniest, yet.

Yes, with proper aim a .22 can be as deadly as a .45, but usually isn't.

If she shot him in his head five times I think that is an indication of why the caliber does matter, even if you don't want to admit it.

If the government proposed banning all guns except .22s, you'd be squalling like a baby that the caliber of a weapon does matter.

And if you can't buy a magazine which exceeds 10 rounds, there is nothing preventing you from practicing rapid magazine changes to become more proficient at this skill, or buying multiple firearms to avoid changing magazines altogether, or change the fact a shotgun with 00 shells and just a 4 round capacity will spit out more 8.4mm sized pellets than a 9mm semi-automatic handgun with a 15 round magazine.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

This is the funniest, yet.

Yes, with proper aim a .22 can be as deadly as a .45, but usually isn't.

If she shot him in his head five times I think that is an indication of why the caliber does matter, even if you don't want to admit it.

If the government proposed banning all guns except .22s, you'd be squalling like a baby that the caliber of a weapon does matter.

And if you can't buy a magazine which exceeds 10 rounds, there is nothing preventing you from practicing rapid magazine changes to become more proficient at this skill, or buying multiple firearms to avoid changing magazines altogether, or change the fact a shotgun with 00 shells and just a 4 round capacity will spit out more 8.4mm sized pellets than a 9mm semi-automatic handgun with a 15 round magazine.

There is also this wonderful thing called shotshell ammunition for handguns. http://www.cci-ammunition.com/produc...specialty.aspx

I highly recommend it because it won't go through walls as easily, and if you don't feel comfortable with a shotgun, this provides the deadly spread in a more compact form.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Just a little fact since the sunsetting of the original AWB
Direct your attention to the chart at the bottom
From FBI.GOV
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime

From your link...

Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.)

That graph you directed my attention to includes both gun related and non-gun related crime. You can conclude the overall violent crime rate is dropping, however you can't conclude the same for gun related violence. In a ratio of gun related crimes and non-gun related crimes, if the former increased at a slower rate than the latter decreased the overall trend would show decline even if the number of gun related crimes increased each year.

So unless you can show me where they analyze the gun related and non-gun related crimes rates seperately then you can't infer their rates from the graph you showed.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

So, using my M-14 or my .243 in my house to defend my kids could be illegal?

Let me explain further.

Handguns and shotguns are going to give you an effective range of 50m, in general. Some more, some less. In another thread, ICKYSHUFFLE suggested people might need an assault rifle to engage targets to protect themselves instead of a handgun or shotgun. (I could look it up, but I don't feel like searching for the quote.) Therefore, if you need an assault rifle's increased range to engage a target it is beyond the max effective range of a handgun or shotgun which is generally 50m. So we are talking about ranges in excess of 50m.

If someone is 50m or more away from you, they're most likely not an imminent threat to your life because at that range you still have other courses of action than deadly force.

Again the laws vary from state to state, but in your house generally you are allowed to use deadly force. If you have a house where the rooms are larger than 50m x 50m, then you might need an assault rifle's extended range vs. a handgun or shotgun. If not, then there are plenty of firearms which will do the job of home defense just fine.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

There is also this wonderful thing called shotshell ammunition for handguns. http://www.cci-ammunition.com/produc...specialty.aspx

I highly recommend it because it won't go through walls as easily, and if you don't feel comfortable with a shotgun, this provides the deadly spread in a more compact form.

That, or a fragmenting hollowpoint.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

That, or a fragmenting hollowpoint.

A fragmenting hollowpoint still requires a higher level of accuracy than a shotshell would require. Accuracy under duress is not easy for most people.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

There is also this wonderful thing called shotshell ammunition for handguns. http://www.cci-ammunition.com/produc...specialty.aspx

I highly recommend it because it won't go through walls as easily, and if you don't feel comfortable with a shotgun, this provides the deadly spread in a more compact form.

http://www.handgunsmag.com/2011/11/0...sson-governor/

I'm familiar with 410 shells being used in .45 revolvers. Didn't know they are available in so many calibers.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

So, using my M-14 or my .243 in my house to defend my kids could be illegal?

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Again the laws vary from state to state, but in your house generally you are allowed to use deadly force. Unless you have a house where the rooms are larger than 50m x 50m, then you might need an assault rifle's extended range vs. a handgun or shotgun. If not, then there are plenty of firearms which will do the job of home defense just fine.

I can't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle with a pistol. For some reason, I have always been a better shot with, pardon me, my long barrel. I came in 5th in the annual sharpshooter competition at Ft. Campbell in 1987 (M16A2). I've dropped deer and elk from 600 yards. I think I could take care of an intruder with a hip shot from either rifle.

I'm just making sure my M14 isn't considered an assault rifle-I would need special licensing to keep it if it is considered one.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

I can't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle with a pistol. For some reason, I have always been a better shot with, pardon me, my long barrel. I came in 5th in the annual sharpshooter competition at Ft. Campbell in 1987 (M16A2). I've dropped deer and elk from 600 yards. I think I could take care of an intruder with a hip shot from either rifle.

I'm just making sure my M14 isn't considered an assault rifle-I would need special licensing to keep it if it is considered one.

The first time I tried to qualify with the 9mm Barretta, I couldn't hit squat either. An instructor came over and showed me where I was going wrong. I was locking my elbows. On the next attempt, I hit every pop-up and had two double-taps (I was getting a little cocky at the end). Now, I am far more accurate with a sidearm at short range than an M-16. It is often just one small thing.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

So everyone is just killing everyone?

http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1765

Tracing the information to the source...

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Figure 1 shows the homicide rate has simply returned to its long term rate rather than an overall decline.

Also, pro-gun fanatics claim we need the solve the underlying problems of gun violence. Don't punish the guns.

The data shows people who are young, male, live in large cities, and disproportionately black are more likely to commit a homicide involving a friend/acquantence.

So we need to cure people of being young, male, black, living in cities, and having friends.

Also, 77% of homicides involving multiple victims are commited by guns.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...963761,00.html

No one can convincingly explain exactly how the crime problem was solved.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murd...ally-and-state
Refer to the chart at the bottom of the page.

See the first chart in your first link.

Classic can't see the forest for the trees.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ate-death-rate

“We’re really not sure what’s driving this. That’s the million-dollar question,” Anderson said.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

I can't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle with a pistol. For some reason, I have always been a better shot with, pardon me, my long barrel. I came in 5th in the annual sharpshooter competition at Ft. Campbell in 1987 (M16A2). I've dropped deer and elk from 600 yards. I think I could take care of an intruder with a hip shot from either rifle.

I'm just making sure my M14 isn't considered an assault rifle-I would need special licensing to keep it if it is considered one.

That depends upon your state laws.

Check with them about that, not me.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Are you not aware of the part in the NDAA Bill where it states that the government can lock people up in RE-EDUCATION CAMPS(Nazi terminology) and use things such as blasting pro government messages over loud speakers all day.
You will have to give me a bit to find the actual name of this type of program.

Here we go again with this silliness.

The same thing has been around since the adoption of the Patriot Act early in Bush's first term.

Now it's been included in the National Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, lots of pork belly legislation gets added to the NDAA every year. Because if it didn't get passed every year, our military service members wouldn't get paid nor could the military pay for combat and training operations or even their electric bill.

Who do you think this applies to? It applies to US citizens involved in plotting terrorist attacks. It allows for the same treatment as the inmates in Guantanamo Bay.

If you went to a "re-education camp" what sort of pro-governmnet propaganda do you think they will blast over loud speakers all day?

God Bless America?

The Star-Spangled Banner?

God Bless Texas?

God Bless the USA?

OMG, that would be torture for you, wouldn't it? Especially if they confiscated your copy of Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto.

I disagree with it, even Nazi war criminals were given due process, but you're histrionic about something that won't apply to you unless you're a terror suspect.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Here is some more info on re education camps and the ACTUAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

http://www.infowars.com/army-admits-...ublic-release/

http://rt.com/usa/news/army-manual-camps-citizens-593/

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd534.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-...citizens/30703

"Totalitarian thugs in Washington"



Have you ever read FM 7-8?

It teaches infantry tactics to close with and destroy the enemy. These same tactics could be used against you.

Cue The Twilight Zone theme...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

I think BR just backed my point with good facts.
If a trained police officer only has a 35% hit percentage what do you think a scared mother hiding in a closet trying to keep her kids safe is going to be able to do?
And just give me a minute with trusty GOOGLE SEARCH and I will show you how "RARE" this instance actually is.

Facts?

I'm not going to confirm his facts. I'll let you two confirm his facts.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Here's a little something on the recent mass shooting in Oregon.
It appears that the gunman turned the gun on himself when he seen a ARMED CITIZEN setting up for a shot on him.
FOX NEWS LINK
http://nation.foxnews.com/mall-shoot...-mall-shooting

http://www.examiner.com/article/medi...-armed-citizen

The gun owner drew his weapon and took cover. That's it.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

More good info on guns stopping crime
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_c..._by_gun_owners

From the second link...

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun.

And the source of that statistic? The very same Gary Kleck, Ph.D. from your first link.

Your own information to dissuade assault rifle restrictions so responisble gun owners can defend themselves indicates an assault rifle ban wouldn't affect at least 80% of citizens from defending themselves.

I don't know where you come up with the stuff, but I'm glad you do.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

http://youtu.be/rNW69-TFh0o
I'm done

We can only dream.

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Apparently blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada

Apparently, it's not done.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by BengalbobZilla

wasnt this the same assault weapons ban that reagan sponsored or somethin like that back in the 90s?

Was Reagan in office during the 90s, whippersnapper?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/op...rady-bill.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_H...Prevention_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent...nforcement_Act

[BengalbobZilla]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Was Reagan in office during the 90s, whippersnapper?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/op...rady-bill.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_H...Prevention_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...lt_Weapons_Ban

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent...nforcement_Act

i never said reagan was president in the 90s, this is what i was referring too

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ult-weapon-ban

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by BengalbobZilla

i never said reagan was president in the 90s, this is what i was referring too

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ult-weapon-ban

You asked if he sponsored the bill.

Can former US presidents sponsor legislation? Or can sitting US presidents sponsor legislation?

[BengalbobZilla]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

You asked if he sponsored the bill.

Can former US presidents sponsor legislation? Or can sitting US presidents sponsor legislation?

sponsored was a bad choice of words...he still played a part in getting it passed

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by BengalbobZilla

sponsored was a bad choice of words...he still played a part in getting it passed

I'm not responsible for your bad choices.