RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner

RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwynn -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/17/2011 2:41:58 PM)
quote: Would it not be so much easier to combat crime if only the police could search anyone at any time they wanted on a hunch, break down doors without a warrant, indiscriminately seize property ? The US drug laws contravene every bit of that. The search is allowed almost anytime as long as the police can conjure up some possible suspicion of 'drug-like activity' or some such; 'drug related' property seizure even when the owner of property had nothing to do with the drugs has been going on for years; and as for kicking doors in with no warrant, here's the latest: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,5858981.story There's already a thread about it elsewhere in this forum. However much the fascination with US gun ownership by some few from other countries, there are much bigger fish to fry here than that, sorry if mundane items such as corporate -> government infestation, etc. doesn't provide the requisite level of drama for some.

lovmuffin -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/17/2011 3:05:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: Would it not be so much easier to combat crime if only the police could search anyone at any time they wanted on a hunch, break down doors without a warrant, indiscriminately seize property ? The US drug laws contravene every bit of that. The search is allowed almost anytime as long as the police can conjure up some possible suspicion of 'drug-like activity' or some such; 'drug related' property seizure even when the owner of property had nothing to do with the drugs has been going on for years; and as for kicking doors in with no warrant, here's the latest: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,5858981.story There's already a thread about it elsewhere in this forum. However much the fascination with US gun ownership by some few from other countries, there are much bigger fish to fry here than that, sorry if mundane items such as corporate -> government infestation, etc. doesn't provide the requisite level of drama for some. Yes unfortunately you are right and with the police becoming more and more militarized and the courts going along with it, it's probably a good thing we have a second amendment.

DarqueMirror -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/17/2011 4:13:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 But yanno, there are times I feel there's some sort of sick jealousy that the US doesn't hold the record for most killed in a mass murder - such as the 36 killed my Martin Bryant at Tasmania's Port Arthur. Ugh! I remember watching a special about that guy. Funny thing about that massacre....it didn't have to happen. He killed (at one point) 12 people and wounded 10 in a matter of 15 seconds. What's that I said before? "When seconds count, cops are minutes away? He was able to do what he did because the response time was so slow because of the location. Could one legally-armed citizen have stopped him? We'll never know. What we do know is that he had his run of the place for as long as he liked and many people died because they were nothing but sitting ducks.

Focus50 -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/18/2011 4:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 But yanno, there are times I feel there's some sort of sick jealousy that the US doesn't hold the record for most killed in a mass murder - such as the 36 killed my Martin Bryant at Tasmania's Port Arthur. Ugh! I remember watching a special about that guy. Funny thing about that massacre....it didn't have to happen. He killed (at one point) 12 people and wounded 10 in a matter of 15 seconds. What's that I said before? "When seconds count, cops are minutes away? He was able to do what he did because the response time was so slow because of the location. Could one legally-armed citizen have stopped him? We'll never know. What we do know is that he had his run of the place for as long as he liked and many people died because they were nothing but sitting ducks. Ahhh yes, the ol' woulda/coulda/shoulda argument - like Pearl Harbour (tracking the incoming Japanese planes on radar and ignoring it) and all the things that woulda/coulda/shoulda happened that instead enabled the 9/11 tragedy. If armed, presumably with a handgun, I'm wondering how many "John Citizen"s would've gone one-on-one with a proven stone-killer armed with a Chinese (semi-auto) military assault rifle - amongst other guns, for memory.... Ok, in American action movies we all know the murderous bad guys armed with automatic assault weapons are no chance against a lone Steven Seagal type and his trusty handgun. But would it play out that way in real life? I'm thinking Americans and esp those who embrace this Second Amendment are also familiar with terms like "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" etc - as being the price of "freedom"? The price is too high.... Focus.

Edwynn -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/18/2011 7:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 If armed, presumably with a handgun, I'm wondering how many "John Citizen"s would've gone one-on-one with a proven stone-killer armed with a Chinese (semi-auto) military assault rifle - amongst other guns, for memory.... e? Focus. Probably not any moreso than any of the crowd in the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords did, i.e. nothing, in an area where there are more gun owners than average for the country. Six dead, fourteen others wounded. The shooter was subdued physically when it was clear he was out of ammunition. quote: Ok, in American action movies we all know the murderous bad guys armed with automatic assault weapons are no chance against a lone Steven Seagal type and his trusty handgun. But would it play out that way in real life? I think the depiction there explains the fascination of some in other countries with the guns/US thing. They watch all these movies out of Hollywood that sell on violence and, seeing one after another of these films subconsciously start to assume that's what it's actually like in the US; 'make my day,' 'it's a good day to die,' etc. Meanwhile there are ~260-280 people in the US who do not own guns and even some more who do own guns that just go about a normal life, just like everywhere else. It's only in some areas where the awareness and the cause for concern to actual harm exist, and though presence of guns can certainly exacerbate that situation, the underlying cause exists aside from that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/18/2011 8:57:15 AM)
~FR One house is known to belong to someone who owns alot of guns. Another house is known to be owned by someone who freely admits guns are evil and will never own one. Which one do you think the criminals will go after?

Rule -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/18/2011 10:00:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 But yanno, there are times I feel there's some sort of sick jealousy that the US doesn't hold the record for most killed in a mass murder - such as the 36 killed my Martin Bryant at Tasmania's Port Arthur. Ugh! I have studied that case. My conclusion - if I recall correctly, previously suggested by others - is that the man was a scape-goat, and that the real gun-man was someone (a soldier?) who acted under orders and that the purpose of the exercise was to introduce arms prohibition laws without public opposition.

Focus50 -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 5:17:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 But yanno, there are times I feel there's some sort of sick jealousy that the US doesn't hold the record for most killed in a mass murder - such as the 36 killed my Martin Bryant at Tasmania's Port Arthur. Ugh! I have studied that case. My conclusion - if I recall correctly, previously suggested by others - is that the man was a scape-goat, and that the real gun-man was someone (a soldier?) who acted under orders and that the purpose of the exercise was to introduce arms prohibition laws without public opposition. Lol, I guess it wouldn't be a high profile case without a conspiracy theory somewhere. For all that died, a lot more survived despite the gunman drawing down on them. Ok, when it's pointed at you, you only see the gun - but I'm thinking everyone else was looking at the gunman. And the "motive" is laughable - not even the rough n tumble of Italian, Japanese or Thai politics would think that a good idea they could pull off...! Australia is truly the land of the great outdoors - a lot of sporting shooters here (or there were). You know, people who vote; which makes such a premise highly risky given that our politicians are as gutless and self-serving as anyone else's.... It was classical News footage when then Prime Minister John Howard addressed a rally of sporting shooters when justifying the new gun laws and everyone could see the bulging of the body armour under his suit. At least he (probably) declined the kevlar full-face helmet.... lmao There was never any agenda for arms prohibition, but there's always an agenda to stay elected.... Focus. quote: Rule

Termyn8or -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 5:38:23 AM)
FR No matter what. Some people will submit to burglars with knives, governments with agandae, whatever else and still not advocate the private ownership of firearms. Some people will not submit to disarmament no matter what some statistics say, even if ten percent of the population is gunned down in the streets every day. No matter what. Every thread on this subject will last and last. Nobody will change their minds. Noone will convince anyone. No matter what. If the government gets out of control here we will have the ability to make them afraid, more afraid than they already are. Less secure. Less apt to tread on us - eventually. Unless we allow them to disarm us. No matter what. Some people believe that they are better off letting someone else defend them, even if that defense is not forthcoming nor effective. No matter what. T^T

Focus50 -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 5:40:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn I think the depiction there explains the fascination of some in other countries with the guns/US thing. They watch all these movies out of Hollywood that sell on violence and, seeing one after another of these films subconsciously start to assume that's what it's actually like in the US; 'make my day,' 'it's a good day to die,' etc. I dunno if people are that dumb. Most expect to see action when they watch an action film - it's just that so many are poorly made. The car wreck where inevitably all of its 16 fuel tanks from front to rear explode one after another; the fact that, in American films in particular, they spoil what would be a spectacular visual wreck by burying it in a huge fireball (all those fuel tanks again). Same with guns.... How many times have we seen military assault weapons making pretty sparks as the bullets deflect harmlessly off car panels? Those who know anything about such weapons know you're not safe hiding behind a car, not even with the engine block between you and the gunman. Lol, I recently watched a re-run of Lethal Weapon II - Danny Glover from waaaay down in the ship's hold and armed with his trusty 2" snub-nose revolver, and the bad guy waaaay the fuck up on the bridge catwalk; and bang, right between the eyes!!!! Anyone whose fired a handgun knows it'd be a 50-50 chance of hitting the freakin' bridge! I think Hollywood has a lot to answer for re reality (and still make it a decent action film); that it's not necessarily the viewer who's the idiot. Hmmm, Ben Affleck's "The Town" was more representative as to what assault rifles can do - no "pretty sparks" there.... Focus. quote: Edwynn

Termyn8or -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 5:55:22 AM)
Anyone whose fired a handgun knows ? Who would that be ? I've taken out birds in flight with a BB gun. That was over fifteen feet away. They don't fly on the ground you know. Criminals do. If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, that's not my problem. T^T

lovmuffin -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 10:11:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Ahhh yes, the ol' woulda/coulda/shoulda argument - like Pearl Harbour (tracking the incoming Japanese planes on radar and ignoring it) and all the things that woulda/coulda/shoulda happened that instead enabled the 9/11 tragedy. If armed, presumably with a handgun, I'm wondering how many "John Citizen"s would've gone one-on-one with a proven stone-killer armed with a Chinese (semi-auto) military assault rifle - amongst other guns, for memory.... Ok, in American action movies we all know the murderous bad guys armed with automatic assault weapons are no chance against a lone Steven Seagal type and his trusty handgun. But would it play out that way in real life? I'm thinking Americans and esp those who embrace this Second Amendment are also familiar with terms like "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" etc - as being the price of "freedom"? The price is too high.... Focus. I'm taking this to mean what kind of chance would a guy with a hand gun have against a maniac with an assault weapon. A knowledgeable experienced marksman knows that many of the aspects of gun fighting are tactical as well as the ability to make a well placed shot quickly. The maniac will have no idea who might be armed. This is a disadvantage for him as while he's shooting the place up concentrating in one direction the guy with the handgun has his sights fixed on the maniacs head. In a one on one situation, it matters little whether some guy has a semi auto or whatever and the other guy doesn't. The ability of the shooter and a well placed shot matters most. The maniac could easily be taken out by a guy with a flintlock especially if he is the kind of guy who can hit a deer running through the woods. Keep in mind also that semi auto (assault looking military sort of) weapons are a bit over rated. They come in handy for experienced shooters when confronting multiple opponents when seconds or split seconds count and could mean the difference between life and death. If confronting unarmed people it's not likely to make a hill of beans what type of firearm the maniac has. A 12 gauge pump shotgun comes to mind even a double barrel (2 shot) shot gun would suffice and extract as much or more carnage as a semi auto or whatever. Also, just one more clarification needs to be made. Technically there is no such thing as a semi auto assault weapon or assault weapon. Assault weapon is a term coined by gun advertisers and importers to make their particulars semi auto military looking guns sound really bad. The term was then exploited by the media and gun grabber politicians after a similar gun mass murder tragedy in the US in 1989. Though assault weapon could mean an assault rifle as assault rifles are after all weapons and they have the word assault. Assault rifles are a design concept. One of the concepts for an assault rifle is it must be capable of semi automatic or full automatic fire with the flip of a switch. That Chinese semi auto AK 47 type junk is not an assault rifle. Semi automatics have existed for 100 years.

Kirata -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 11:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Keep in mind also that semi auto (assault looking military sort of) weapons are a bit over rated. Particularly in the kind of scenario cooked up in the post you're responding to. The "assault" weapon would likely fire either 5.56 or 7.62mm jacketed high velocity rounds that are not stopped by soft tissue and create a clean wound channel. Defense handguns are designed to fire larger (typically 9mm to 45 caliber) expanding or frangible rounds at lower velocity for large wound channel first-shot stopping power with minimal risk of over-penetration. In a face off with an non-full automatic "assault" rifle at close range, assuming equal skill the guy with the .45 has a much better chance of being the one left standing. K.

kdsub -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 11:36:52 AM)
It's still a crap shoot...luck usually prevails not skill. I remember a good example...Two highway patrolmen pull over a pickup with two men inside. All four pull weapons and at a range of less then 10 feet they fire over twenty rounds... No one was hit. This is not an isolated incident...It is a lot harder to shoot accurately when someone is shooting at you no matter how proficient you are at shooting a target or birds. Butch

Kirata -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 12:00:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub luck usually prevails not skill Without even quibbling over your example, luck is a matter of odds and it always helps to have them on your side. K.

lovmuffin -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 12:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It's still a crap shoot...luck usually prevails not skill. I remember a good example...Two highway patrolmen pull over a pickup with two men inside. All four pull weapons and at a range of less then 10 feet they fire over twenty rounds... No one was hit. This is not an isolated incident...It is a lot harder to shoot accurately when someone is shooting at you no matter how proficient you are at shooting a target or birds. Butch Part of your last sentence "It is a lot harder to shoot accurately when someone is shooting at you...." is only partly true. There is definitely a factor when one is shooting under stress but it's certainly not a crap shoot. "This is not an isolated incident....." It would seem isolated based on my knowledge. This would be more like an exception to the rule. In the scenario you described you really didn't provide enough information to make an informed comment. I would venture to guess all 4 took cover behind the vehicles. I would doubt they were all out in the open 10 feet away and missed. Keep in mind also, way too many cops are not proficient enough with their sidearms. This could also lend itself to the type of scenario that you describe. I hate to break it to ya but skill will usually prevail.

lovmuffin -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 12:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Keep in mind also that semi auto (assault looking military sort of) weapons are a bit over rated. Particularly in the kind of scenario cooked up in the post you're responding to. The "assault" weapon would likely fire either 5.56 or 7.62mm jacketed high velocity rounds that are not stopped by soft tissue and create a clean wound channel. Defense handguns are designed to fire larger (typically 9mm to 45 caliber) expanding or frangible rounds at lower velocity for large wound channel first-shot stopping power with minimal risk of over-penetration. In a face off with an non-full automatic "assault" rifle at close range, assuming equal skill the guy with the .45 has a much better chance of being the one left standing. K. A good point. I tried not to expand on my post with too many technicalities so much as nonshooters will not easy to grasp them, however that was well stated.

joether -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 1:05:01 PM)
Why is it the OP needs to bring up that some person, some where, successfully used a firearm to protect themselves (by the law of probablility it has to happen, right?)? How often do we hear of people who pay attention to their surroundings (from some self defense classes they took), choose not to go down the un-lit alley but instead stick to the crowded streets? Or of the folks who's dog starts barking because he hears not the intruder, but that squirrel that he's been after for a week (yes, the world doesn't always revolve around the criminals as far as dogs are concern)? How often do we hear stories of someone being attacked and the firearm wasn't even used, even though the person is able to own one? Wasn't their some lady who is the president of some major firearm club/organization who was shot dead in her own house? While talking about the dynamics of firearms, the effectiveness one one type over another, or which is better for dealing with rampaging "Broad side of Barns", none of these are even 'on topic' for this thread.

lovmuffin -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 1:15:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether While talking about the dynamics of firearms, the effectiveness one one type over another, or which is better for dealing with rampaging "Broad side of Barns", none of these are even 'on topic' for this thread. I didn't bring it up but was responding to another post or 2 that I took and exception to. Much of it though parallels or expands on the OP.

lovmuffin -> RE: Private firearms ownership saves another homeowner (5/19/2011 1:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Why is it the OP needs to bring up that some person, some where, successfully used a firearm to protect themselves (by the law of probablility it has to happen, right?)? I'm not sure. Why don't we ask him. Maybe it's a topic that belongs in a politics forum.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02