The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[PointOfViewGun]

I repeat, Dr. Doom is not in the business of breaking and entering...

[Surgeon]

But apparently people who can get shot 5 times, walk away and try to flee the crime scene by car are.

[PointOfViewGun]

But apparently people who can get shot 5 times, walk away and try to flee the crime scene by car are.

They can walk away after getting shot in the head 5 times?

[Surgeon]

That's what the article said, didn't it?

[Mithridate]

Double post, apologies

[Mithridate]

Yes, he clearly just walked away:

The injured intruder stumbled out of the home and attempted to flee in his car. However, he crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway, according to WSB-TV.

Without more details its hard to say much but:

Was she in danger when she fired the first shot? Probably not, but very understandable reaction and more than justified even tho i strongly disagree with doing so.
When she shot him again, again, then again and again and attempted again? No, that sounds pretty damn unreasonable

Had he not made any attempt but to run he should not be shot imho, winged if possible but with the crazy lawsuits circling the net id not even do that.

[Surgeon]

Well did she run after him and try to finish him off or something? In most such cases the shots are fired within several seconds, I doubt she followed him down the hall taking potshots at him.

If he had fallen down and she continued shooting him in the head that would've been unreasonable.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's what the article said, didn't it?

It's either a misinformation or we're not talking about direct hits but bullets simply scrape off his face. We were talking about 5 direct shots to the head.

[Whukid]

The chance of getting attacked with an AK-47 is so small that if you use it as an argument for having something equivalent, you might as well argue that everyone should be allowed to have their personal Tank Granted, in time the chance might actually become relevant if your line of reasoning is embraced...

If there's no chance of getting attacked by someone armed with an AK-47, why do you want to ban them? Seems hypocritical..

The odds you will be attacked by the the former or latter is miniscule, neither are a problem and to use it as an argument to keeping said weapons is pointless. Funny, you where the one whom brought it up when he strictly used statistics to show the line of reasoning utterly flawed

Really? And what statistics would that be?

When people around me start to army up, it does concern me. Even when its distant America, only to an miniscule extent. Though as im not an american, i can only voice my opinion and not really do anything about it

.

I can't tell if you only skimmed my statement enough to note the use of the term "AR" and "AK-47", or you're just being intentionally thick. Here, let me repeat it.

What discussion, exactly? we're squabbling over a completely irrelevant point in the argument. Whether criminals use AK-47's depends on the criminals, their intent, and whether or not they want to lug the damn thing around, but it does happen. If someone wants to be prepared for such an occasion or whether they want the ability to use the extremely modular AR platform for self defense should be their prerogative, not yours.

However: Blindly citing rights will get you nowhere fast, things change.
I have to say, your insistence on these extreme cases is... beyond me

Come on, you're not even trying to have a logical argument. You're looking to ban ugly black guns because someone shot up a movie theater in a spectacularly rare case of violence on a mass scale. You're not even looking at the weapons that are used in most violent crimes (knives, baseball bats, hand guns), just the ignorant notion that banning these black guns will keep people safe, even when multiple people multiple times have shown ACTUAL facts that disprove this point.

Then again, half baked strawmen...

Says the person touting the UK gun ban after one instance of violence. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

[Whukid]

More guns into the schools, weapons for everyone!

That will would turn out pretty... Sorry, im just repulsed by the notion five shots to the face is remotely reasonable

What exactly gives you the right to determine what's reasonable? I don't believe you've had any experience with firearms whatsoever, much less been in a gun fight. Beyond Hollywood, what are you credentials on the matter?

[Surgeon]

It's either a misinformation or we're not talking about direct hits but bullets simply scrape off his face. We were talking about 5 direct shots to the head.

No idea, it just said "face and neck" hits that weren't lethal. Somebody then commented how shooting an intruder 5 times in the face is excessive, others said nothing's excessive as long as the threat remains.

If you've shot someone 5 times in the head after they already went down then I'm pretty sure you can be found guilty of murder. Double-tapping isn't allowed.

[Gelgoog]

You are not fighting Dr. Doom. A normal person goes down with a single shot to the head.

I don't intentially aim for the head, I aim for the largest target.

Let me highlight something:

One of the reasons you want to kill an intruder is because you don't want to get sued later on for wounding him. I don't think that needs commenting....

Intentionally wounding someone have ended very badly in the court of law for many people. It is deemed that if you have time to intentionally wound someone that your life was not in danger, and you are in some serious trouble. Many criminals have also successfully sued homeowners after having broken into homes and being non-fatally shot.

I shoot to stop the threat, just as I was taught at the police academy, in private advanced rifle course, and how every serious gun school trains you to do. If 5 shots to the chest leave him unconscious on the ground then that is fine, if he is fleeing the scene that is fine, if he is dead that is fine. Being a criminal in the US carries a serious risk of death when you decided to break into homes.

Any person who emphasizes making every effort to wound an intruder when presented with a lethal force situation is a moron. You do not pull the trigger unless you willing to kill what is on the other end.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-sho...or-tactically/

Simple, they didn't. There is a thing called photoshop. They did, however, posted a notice pointing out that that poster was a fake.

Actually it wasn't fake, I was commenting on their FB page when that incident happened. They hosted that poster, and then when the the criticism started pouring in the deleted all the posts they did not like and wiped it clean of any evidence pointing to their mistake. Then people started really creating the fake posters to lambast them. The brady campaign is not the translucent entity that you think it is.

Well the statistics seem to suggest and assuming its someone that is try to kill you that more then likely you will have invited that person into the house, put it this way if someone is going to try and kill you more than likely you will know them.

If its a burglar more then likely he just wants your TV but yes you do have a right to defend your property and by all means if you have a gun shoot him in the face that will then go into the numbers as a homicide victim attempting a burglary shot by a private citizen ( 583 cases between 2000 and 2010 in the US)

I do not base the life of myself and my family on the "likelihood" that mr. criminal just was my TV. He may only "just" want to knock me out when he hits me over the head with a blunt object, but instead leaves me in a vegetative state for the rest of my life. He may not have intended to rape anyone when he broke in, but saw an opportunity to do so. His "intentions" become irrelevant when he enters the threshold of my home illegally. I would rather be judged by a jury of 12 then carried by 6.

If we make that burglar a stranger its 193 and unknown relationship its 219 (Why the relationship between the victim and the killer remains unknown I do not understand ) You know how many husbands killed their wife’s with a gun in the same period 3,670, you know how many wife’s killed their husbands with a gun in the same period 796

Passion crimes and premeditated murder of family members are very difficult to defend against. Most people are going to resist killing a family member even if their life is in danger. So it really does not have much merit in this discussion.

[Mithridate]

I can't tell if you only skimmed my statement enough to note the use of the term "AR" and "AK-47", or you're just being intentionally thick. Here, let me repeat it.

I cant tell if you read what i typed at all, so thats fair enough.

What discussion, exactly? we're squabbling over a completely irrelevant point in the argument. Whether criminals use AK-47's depends on the criminals, their intent, and whether or not they want to lug the damn thing around, but it does happen. If someone wants to be prepared for such an occasion or whether they want the ability to use the extremely modular AR platform for self defense should be their prerogative, not yours.

The chance of getting attacked with an AK-47 is so small that if you use it as an argument for having something equivalent, you might as well argue that everyone should be allowed to have their personal Tank Granted, in time the chance might actually become relevant if your line of reasoning is embraced...

The odds you will be attacked by the the former or latter is miniscule, neither are a problem and to use it as an argument to keeping said weapons is pointless. Funny, you where the one whom brought it up when he strictly used statistics to show the line of reasoning utterly flawed

When people around me start to army up, it does concern me. Even when its distant America, only to an miniscule extent. Though as im not an american, i can only voice my opinion and not really do anything about it.

I thought id rather not type it all over again in a new fashion

Come on, you're not even trying to have a logical argument. You're looking to ban ugly black guns because someone shot up a movie theater in a spectacularly rare case of violence on a mass scale. You're not even looking at the weapons that are used in most violent crimes (knives, baseball bats, hand guns), just the ignorant notion that banning these black guns will keep people safe, even when multiple people multiple times have shown ACTUAL facts that disprove this point.

Indeed i want to ban weapons, partially due to the very rare occasions of mentioned, but this is more the reason:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well the statistics seem to suggest and assuming its someone that is try to kill you that more then likely you will have invited that person into the house, put it this way if someone is going to try and kill you more than likely you will know them.

If its a burglar more then likely he just wants your TV but yes you do have a right to defend your property and by all means if you have a gun shoot him in the face that will then go into the numbers as a homicide victim attempting a burglary shot by a private citizen ( 583 cases between 2000 and 2010 in the US)

If we make that burglar a stranger its 193 and unknown relationship its 219 (Why the relationship between the victim and the killer remains unknown I do not understand ) You know how many husbands killed their wife’s with a gun in the same period 3,670, you know how many wife’s killed their husbands with a gun in the same period 796

Part from that, i believe that guns are a negative influence in society, not to mention that the 35x higher rate of "death by gunshot" for 15-24 yearolds in the US

Says the person touting the UK gun ban after one instance of violence. Slightly hypocritical, don't you think?

If there's no chance of getting attacked by someone armed with an AK-47, why do you want to ban them? Seems hypocritical..

Really? And what statistics would that be?

I grow tired of your dismissive and rather rude comments. Look up the definition of hypocrite and if you where serious about requesting the statistics and still are after this post then i rudely have to say that we are done talking to each other about this as we are going in circles.

What exactly gives you the right to determine what's reasonable? I don't believe you've had any experience with firearms whatsoever, much less been in a gun fight. Beyond Hollywood, what are you credentials on the matter?

Depends what on earth you mean by that statement and in what context Perhaps we should leave it at this:

Regardless, people have the right to defend themselves. That much is plain. Whether or not excessive force was used is for the courts to decide, not forum-goers.

And that i think it wrong to kill anyone unless ones own life is clearly at risk. From what little we know i should add that i do not think the woman whom shot the intruder 5 times in the head was that, and 5 times? She was not using a Uzi... i think thats wrong, theres not much more to be said on the subject.

As to me:
Im Swedish non-military, no ive never been in a gunfight But if i had, then surely id know best.

All ive handled is hunting rifles and the odd usually old handgun. But
id like to know how thats relevant to anything we've discussed as the one thing one gains from handling weapons is respect for them imho.

[The spartan]

You were the one who said that criminals don't use AK-47's. Sure, other weapons are more common (knives and baseball bats, in most places), but it hardly means that the possibility isn't there. Especially in the Southwestern US along the Mexican border, long arms are increasingly used by the cartels.

The possibility of being attacked by a mutant land-shark is there, it doesn't mean that going to buy a harpoon gun for self defense is a good idea. You can justify owning anything if you are going to toss what if scenarios are around.

The first part? You mean the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", which would be the provision saying that the people need to be armed to maintain their freedoms? (And so we can conclude that it protects the rights of people to protect themselves from the government) I didn't gloss over it, I merely italicized the second part, which explicitly highlights that it is the people who have the right to own firearms, but thumbs up to you too.

Really? You can just conclude that it is to protect the rights of people from the government? How the hell did you get to that? I thought that Pres. Washington disarming "arm bearing citizens" during the Whiskey Rebellion made it obvious the founding fathers did not intend the 2nd amendment to be used against a government. Realistically, the founding fathers intended (then again, just an educated guess) for the second amendment to make militias more available (no army at the time) so that the states could protect themselves from various threats.

Not patronizing, just longing for someone to actually create a logical argument against people owning guns.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm pretty disappointed, Spartan. I was atleast hoping for a legitimate counter argument, rather than an uneducated statement that doesn't really use anything related to factual information.

Pretty much the definition of patronizing. Like I said, though: cute.

[PointOfViewGun]

Intentionally wounding someone have ended very badly in the court of law for many people. It is deemed that if you have time to intentionally wound someone that your life was not in danger, and you are in some serious trouble. Many criminals have also successfully sued homeowners after having broken into homes and being non-fatally shot.

I shoot to stop the threat, just as I was taught at the police academy, in private advanced rifle course, and how every serious gun school trains you to do. If 5 shots to the chest leave him unconscious on the ground then that is fine, if he is fleeing the scene that is fine, if he is dead that is fine. Being a criminal in the US carries a serious risk of death when you decided to break into homes.

Any person who emphasizes making every effort to wound an intruder when presented with a lethal force situation is a moron. You do not pull the trigger unless you willing to kill what is on the other end.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-sho...or-tactically/

Well, that's complete bollocks. We're talking about home invasion and nobody suggested people to aim for the arms or legs only. Wanting to kill an intruder partly because he might sue you is just wrong.

Actually it wasn't fake, I was commenting on their FB page when that incident happened. They hosted that poster, and then when the the criticism started pouring in the deleted all the posts they did not like and wiped it clean of any evidence pointing to their mistake. Then people started really creating the fake posters to lambast them. The brady campaign is not the translucent entity that you think it is.

Right, you're free to make stuff up of course. It's pathetic to do so though.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

"Says you. I will keep my arsenal thank you very much."

I despair of this attitude, I really do. No doubt your one of those "Murrika; death to the evil terrorists" guys?

": Well good luck with that."

You sound like you've never even been in a bloody fight before. Don't dare try and ridicule me for my perspective. I don't need a damn assault rifle to defend my home against an invader. A quick kick to the groin is all that's needed ffs..... failing that, there's a bat I keep upstairs in case I really need it. There is no call for a much more brutal weapon.

No doubt you think that a burglar deserves a nice shotgun blast to the face. How civilised of you.

"Ah so no evidence at all right? Guess that is all we are going to get from you."

Look at the crime mortality rate (as already discussed with Surgeon) here when compared to the USA (as a percentage). Case closed.

I can tell your very myopic; no point trying to make you see reason. Therefore I'm ending this discussion, before you really start to piss me off with your mocking attitude. Enjoy your "freedom".

[Simon Cashmere]

LOGANVILLE, Ga. —
A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/


Far better from a gun control perspective that this intruder raped the mum in front of the kids than he be shot with a gun. I mean, that man has rights dontcha know. If she had been in Australia, no gun. Just a small news item about a mother raped and murdered in front of the kids. Maybe the kids killed too. But it would be a small price to pay for gun control.

[tarvu]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/


Far better from a gun control perspective that this intruder raped the mum in front of the kids than he be shot with a gun. I mean, that man has rights dontcha know. If she had been in Australia, no gun. Just a small news item about a mother raped and murdered in front of the kids. Maybe the kids killed too. But it would be a small price to pay for gun control.

Gun owners are a minority, I guess most people just want their kids to be killed because they don't keep AR's in their house.

Every time I see a mother walking down the street who is not strapped I am sick to my stomach, someone should clearly take that baby away from such a negligent mother.

[PointOfViewGun]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/


Far better from a gun control perspective that this intruder raped the mum in front of the kids than he be shot with a gun. I mean, that man has rights dontcha know. If she had been in Australia, no gun. Just a small news item about a mother raped and murdered in front of the kids. Maybe the kids killed too. But it would be a small price to pay for gun control.

I wonder when pro-gun people will past beyond using straw man arguments.

[Bleda]

Really? You can just conclude that it is to protect the rights of people from the government? How the hell did you get to that? I thought that Pres. Washington disarming "arm bearing citizens" during the Whiskey Rebellion made it obvious the founding fathers did not intend the 2nd amendment to be used against a government. Realistically, the founding fathers intended (then again, just an educated guess) for the second amendment to make militias more available (no army at the time) so that the states could protect themselves from various threats.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment. And yes the 2nd Amendment is absolutely about the the right of the people to keep and bear arms in opposition to a standing army. The descriptive part of the text outlines it as necessary for the security of a FREE state. The 2nd Amendment is a codified facilitator of the people's right of revolution, a right which Washington was strongly in favor of. Afterall he just waged a revolution against his own lawful government and fought almost entirely against a certain standing army.