At least 8 dead in Mass Shooting du Jour

[bilby]

A short barrel shotgun is a far better choice for home protection over a rifle. Birdshot if you want to scare people away, buckshot if you want lethality.

And a hell of a lot of recoil, unsuitable for many. And that buckshot also goes through walls.

Hence my recommendation of a baseball bat, (which has neither shortcoming, and is similarly effective at the very short ranges typical of combat inside a home), as the weapon of choice for home defence.

A bat can clobber, it can't deter.

Deter what? If someone has already invaded your home it’s gone past the point of deterrence. A gun can deter if the invader already knows you have a gun.

Whatever your point here is, it would seem “deter” was the wrong choice in words.

Deter as in make him depart if there is an actual encounter.

Real housebreakers are terrified of being caught, and will run away at the slightest challenge. Your fantasy world criminals who fear neither violent bludgeoning with a baseball bat, nor even being seen and subsequently recognised and accused, are a paranoid fictional product of your hyper-violent media culture, and you are unlikely in the extreme to ever encounter such a person.

Even in a society in which the (insane) prevalance of firearms gives such cowards the means to bolster their intestinal fortitude by carrying a weapon that is far too powerful and dangerous to actually be useful to them.

The gun culture that you are defending here likely increases the risk you face from housebreakers tenfold; But ten times bugger-all is still bugger-all.

The fear multipliers are eating your brain. I expect you never even notice that you prefer to call housebreakers "home invaders", as though they were rolling across the border of your property with tanks and infantry divisions.

When you start noticing such loaded language, you will find it everywhere in your media - but most people have no more ability to notice this manipulation, than fish have to notice how wet it always is.

Guns are not needed to defend your property nor your person; Their prevalence in your society massively amplifies the risks you face from criminals, and yet even after this massive amplification, the risk remains tiny, and is outweighed by the risk to you and your family of having a gun in the house.

If you still care about mitigating this tiny risk of criminals breaking into your home, the most effective option would be lobbying your government for strict gun control; And buying a baseball bat.

 

[Derec]

Real housebreakers are terrified of being caught, and will run away at the slightest challenge.

Depends on who it is. Some burglars do just want to . There have been cases of home invasions (which is defined as a residential burglary when occupants are inside) where the victims were raped and/or killed by the perps. If somebody breaks into your house, you never know their intention. Better safe than sorry.

Your fantasy world criminals who fear neither violent bludgeoning with a baseball bat,

Many criminals in these parts carry handguns.

nor even being seen and subsequently recognised and accused, are a paranoid fictional product of your hyper-violent media culture, and you are unlikely in the extreme to ever encounter such a person.

It is not. It happens all the time that violent perps break into dwellings.

The gun culture that you are defending here likely increases the risk you face from housebreakers tenfold; But ten times bugger-all is still bugger-all.

How does it increase the risk 10x? Show your math(s).

The fear multipliers are eating your brain. I expect you never even notice that you prefer to call housebreakers "home invaders", as though they were rolling across the border of your property with tanks and infantry divisions.

Different terminology in different countries. Like how y'all call electrical outlets "powerpoints".
"Home invasion" generally means burglary of an occupied dwelling, while "burglary" refers to unlawfully entering a building (residential or commercial) for the purposes of committing another crime (usually, but not necessarily, theft). We do not use the term "housebreaking".

And home invasions can be dangerous. This just happened in my neck of the woods.
2 men convicted in home invasion murder in Gwinnett County

And sometimes the victims turn the tables:
2 intruders shot in hail of 17 bullets during DeLand home invasion, deputies say
Nonfatally, but still. It encouraged them to beat a hasty retreat much more readily than a baseball bat would have, especially since there were four of them.

If you google news search for "home invasion" you get a number of results from the last few days.

When you start noticing such loaded language, you will find it everywhere in your media - but most people have no more ability to notice this manipulation, than fish have to notice how wet it always is.

It's not manipulation. It's what the particular crime is called.

Guns are not needed to defend your property nor your person; Their prevalence in your society massively amplifies the risks you face from criminals, and yet even after this massive amplification, the risk remains tiny, and is outweighed by the risk to you and your family of having a gun in the house.

There are many cases of individuals who defended themselves from perps using firearms either at their home, or outside of it.
I have given you many examples before.

If you still care about mitigating this tiny risk of criminals breaking into your home, the most effective option would be lobbying your government for strict gun control; And buying a baseball bat.

The case above, where four home invaders were chased off by gunfire would not have worked well with a baseball bat.

 

[Derec]

A short barrel shotgun is a far better choice for home protection over a rifle. Birdshot if you want to scare people away, buckshot if you want lethality.

 

[Derec]

A bullet from an AR15 can travel through 4 inches of wood and still have enough energy to penetrate body armor and kill the human wearing it.

[Citation needed] It will go through 4" of wood, sure, but it will lose a lot of its kinetic energy. Moreover, the bullet (even an FMJ) will deform and tumble, making it far less effective at penetrating the next obstacle (in this case, the vest).

A wall with sheetrock and insulation offers considerably less resistance than the wood. A common sidearm round like the 9mm or 45 auto can penetrate through multiple walls and still have enough energy to kill or wound a human.

Interior sheetrock walls are not very substantial, sure. Unless the bullet encounters a stud.
But here again, bullet deformation plays a role in how damaging it is. And then we have to differentiate between FMJ and hollow points, the latter deforming far more easily.

 

[Derec]

I'm blaming both. Guy did something stupid, system did something stupid. Two stupids met, an innocent ends up dead.

Me too. Unfortunately there is a lot of kneejerk "he did nothing wrong, not a thing" reactions to these kinds of cases.

 

[Derec]

The Constitution supports his right to be armed, period. This means that once he is armed in his home, he can cook, use the bathroom, and even answer the front door while armed because it is his constitutional right. It's absurd to think the Constitution implies that one can't do anything else while being armed. The Constitution does not support an officer shooting a citizen for exercising his constitutional rights no matter how strongly you feel about it.

Again, constitutional rights are not absolute.

 

[Derec]

A ban on civilian ownership of firearms for self or home defence is probably the best way to enhance public safety for any modern industrialised society.

That gives a lot of advantage to the criminals, especially if more than one of them attack you.

A baseball bat is a FAR superior home defence weapon, on a huge number of levels. Not least the unlikelihood that an attempt to use it against an intruder, is going to accidentally kill a family member or bystander who is on the other side of a wall.

A baseball bat is not going to be much of a deterrent against a group of home invaders, like in the case I posted above.

 

[Derec]

The problem with the Rittenhouse case is what happened off camera. The camera only shows part of the picture--if the off-camera part had Rittenhouse threatening with his gun then self defense goes out the window. And I think that's what probably happened--but I wouldn't be willing to say so beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard the law requires.

Would I find him guilty in a civil trial? Certainly.

I don't see why you think that this is what probably happened. It is clear from footage from that day that Rosenbaum was itching to pick a fight with someone. No threatening on part of Ritt was necessary to set the chain of events in motion. There was also no evidence provided that somehow Ritt provoked Rosenbaum into attacking him, despite the hipster doofus prosecutor trying to make it seem that way.

 

[Derec]

Maybe because the deputy intentionally hid himself from being viewed through the peephole, making the victim suspicious.

Isn't that SOP? To avoid giving anyone inside your exact position so they can shoot you through the door?

 

[Derec]

When I joined the forums, I'm pretty sure for the first time (not sure if I spent any time here prior to 2007 but I don't think so), I pointed this out, and have on several occasions since, that the stock design, pistol grip, and a number of other features of the M16 and suitably similar platforms make it more ergonomic specifically for use against human targets.

Repeatedly Derec has vehemently rejected this under a variety of excuses.

I did not reject the fact that the AR15 is an ergonomic weapon. I rejected the claim that it is uniquely suited to commit gun homicides or even mass shootings in the way most mass shootings are conducted - indoors, in places like schools. Handguns are far more suited for that purpose, which explains the fact that vast majority of firearm homicides are committed using handguns, not rifles. Rifles have advantages, but so do handguns. They are smaller, easy to conceal and much easier to wield in close quarters. The only recent case of a mass shooting where a rifle was actually needed was the Las Vegas mass shooting, but that was because unlike most mass shootings, he was shooting at something ~600 m away, not something right in front of him.

Above and beyond this, the powder load just does not compare. Compared to a 22lr, a .223 NATO round is a fucking horse cock compared to a squirrel dick.

It is a much more powerful cartridge, yes. But in vast majority of applications, 9mm provides enough firepower.

 

[ZiprHead]

Maybe because the deputy intentionally hid himself from being viewed through the peephole, making the victim suspicious.

Isn't that SOP? To avoid giving anyone inside your exact position so they can shoot you through the door?

That doesn't change the victim's perceptions. Most people have no idea about police SOPs.

 

[ZiprHead]

And your evidence that such things are happening?

You're asking for evidence???

 

[ZiprHead]

So what? I do not deny that they are powerful guns. I am just pointing out the fact that these guns are rarely used in crime, and that therefore the monomaniacal obsession with banning them is misguided and only wastes political capital. You have not been able to debunk that (since it is true) and so you instead focus on who has carried what at their job.

It's not a monomaniacal obsession. Everytime you bring up handguns in comparison AR type weapons most all of us agree there should be limits on those also.

This is an important point, thanks for posting. Yes, Derec knows, as he has been told scores of times, that poster also want better control on handguns. Derec has read me posting many times all the controls I would like to see that primarily help against handguns in inner city crime. I’ll say them again because he never acknowledges this:

1. Actionable auditing of every single seller of firearms. Eliminate the ability of sellers to shrug and say hundreds of guns were “stolen” or be unable to produce buyer records. This audit information goes into a federal database. If you want to sell guns, you are required to make sure you are not the one handing them to criminals. Federal government should know exactly who is selling firearms, and that their inventory is audited.

And your evidence that such things are happening?

Unlicensed dealers and black market guns

68,000 illegally trafficked guns were sold in a five year period, said ATF

theweek.com

2. Make absolutely certain that all confiscated guns are marked and made inoperable, so that police can’t plant them. This is necessary if we want to do #3

Won't work. If they need plant guns they could get them by other means.

What other means? Actually buying guns?

 

[ZiprHead]

The Constitution supports his right to be armed, period. This means that once he is armed in his home, he can cook, use the bathroom, and even answer the front door while armed because it is his constitutional right. It's absurd to think the Constitution implies that one can't do anything else while being armed. The Constitution does not support an officer shooting a citizen for exercising his constitutional rights no matter how strongly you feel about it.

Again, constitutional rights are not absolute.

What did the victim do that he wasn't constitutionally allowed to do?

 

[Shadowy Man]

A short barrel shotgun is a far better choice for home protection over a rifle. Birdshot if you want to scare people away, buckshot if you want lethality.

And a hell of a lot of recoil, unsuitable for many. And that buckshot also goes through walls.

Hence my recommendation of a baseball bat, (which has neither shortcoming, and is similarly effective at the very short ranges typical of combat inside a home), as the weapon of choice for home defence.

A bat can clobber, it can't deter.

Deter what? If someone has already invaded your home it’s gone past the point of deterrence. A gun can deter if the invader already knows you have a gun.

Whatever your point here is, it would seem “deter” was the wrong choice in words.

Deter as in make him depart if there is an actual encounter.

I would think that “repel” would be better choice of word than “deter” as the latter implies, to me at least, of preventing the invasion in the first place.

I know words have more than one meaning and may mean different things to different people so I won’t belabor the point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deter as in make him depart if there is an actual encounter.

Real housebreakers are terrified of being caught, and will run away at the slightest challenge. Your fantasy world criminals who fear neither violent bludgeoning with a baseball bat, nor even being seen and subsequently recognised and accused, are a paranoid fictional product of your hyper-violent media culture, and you are unlikely in the extreme to ever encounter such a person.

Most will run. Some are on drugs and desperate. But this is America, most of the ones that would run wouldn't have entered an occupied house anyway.

Even in a society in which the (insane) prevalance of firearms gives such cowards the means to bolster their intestinal fortitude by carrying a weapon that is far too powerful and dangerous to actually be useful to them.

The gun culture that you are defending here likely increases the risk you face from housebreakers tenfold; But ten times bugger-all is still bugger-all.

Disagree. Guns mean encounters are far less likely in the first place.

Guns are not needed to defend your property nor your person; Their prevalence in your society massively amplifies the risks you face from criminals, and yet even after this massive amplification, the risk remains tiny, and is outweighed by the risk to you and your family of having a gun in the house.

The thing is criminals mostly use guns against other criminals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe because the deputy intentionally hid himself from being viewed through the peephole, making the victim suspicious.

Isn't that SOP? To avoid giving anyone inside your exact position so they can shoot you through the door?

But the very steps they take to keep from being ambushed make the people inside unable to verify that it's really the police. While I consider the cop to be more a victim of a bad situation I blame the police for setting up the bad situation and I would like to see an attention-getting verdict here. It's an entirely anticipatable failure mode they should have seen and addressed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. Actionable auditing of every single seller of firearms. Eliminate the ability of sellers to shrug and say hundreds of guns were “stolen” or be unable to produce buyer records. This audit information goes into a federal database. If you want to sell guns, you are required to make sure you are not the one handing them to criminals. Federal government should know exactly who is selling firearms, and that their inventory is audited.

And your evidence that such things are happening?

Unlicensed dealers and black market guns

68,000 illegally trafficked guns were sold in a five year period, said ATF

theweek.com

Foot, meet bullet. That's not talking about licensed dealers, you're looking under the streetlight again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A short barrel shotgun is a far better choice for home protection over a rifle. Birdshot if you want to scare people away, buckshot if you want lethality.

And a hell of a lot of recoil, unsuitable for many. And that buckshot also goes through walls.

Hence my recommendation of a baseball bat, (which has neither shortcoming, and is similarly effective at the very short ranges typical of combat inside a home), as the weapon of choice for home defence.

A bat can clobber, it can't deter.

Deter what? If someone has already invaded your home it’s gone past the point of deterrence. A gun can deter if the invader already knows you have a gun.

Whatever your point here is, it would seem “deter” was the wrong choice in words.

Deter as in make him depart if there is an actual encounter.

I would think that “repel” would be better choice of word than “deter” as the latter implies, to me at least, of preventing the invasion in the first place.

I know words have more than one meaning and may mean different things to different people so I won’t belabor the point.

Yeah, I could see "repel" rather than "deter". I was thinking of deterring an actual physical encounter.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A short barrel shotgun is a far better choice for home protection over a rifle. Birdshot if you want to scare people away, buckshot if you want lethality.

And a hell of a lot of recoil, unsuitable for many. And that buckshot also goes through walls.

Hence my recommendation of a baseball bat, (which has neither shortcoming, and is similarly effective at the very short ranges typical of combat inside a home), as the weapon of choice for home defence.

A bat can clobber, it can't deter.

Deter what? If someone has already invaded your home it’s gone past the point of deterrence. A gun can deter if the invader already knows you have a gun.

Whatever your point here is, it would seem “deter” was the wrong choice in words.

Deter as in make him depart if there is an actual encounter.

I would think that “repel” would be better choice of word than “deter” as the latter implies, to me at least, of preventing the invasion in the first place.

I know words have more than one meaning and may mean different things to different people so I won’t belabor the point.

Yeah, I could see "repel" rather than "deter". I was thinking of deterring an actual physical encounter.

And I was assuming that not everyone who would happily invade a home would also happily murder the inhabitants. They might well be repelled by a baseball bat rather than risk an encounter and up the level of criminality.