Yet another shooting thread

[Shadowy Man]

I really don't know why Democrats are so obsessed with banning so-called assault weapons instead of using their political capital pursuing more beneficial forms of gun control.

Really? You don’t know why?

I have seen various kinds of gun control legislation put forward by Democrats. Universal background checks, for instance, which is popular with the people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either.

I do not think so, and neither should it be. It's a substantial restriction of gun ownership for a very limited to zero benefit. Small percentage of homicides is committed with these weapons and even those could easily be done with handguns or non-assaulty rifles. The OP shooting could easily have been accomplished with a Glock or two.

I really don't know why Democrats are so obsessed with banning so-called assault weapons instead of using their political capital pursuing more beneficial forms of gun control.

I see it as low fruit. Need to start somewhere, and these guns are the least useful for self defense and hunting.

And note--you're admitting that this is simply a step towards banning. Expect the gun groups to fight tooth and nail about it.

And why are they not useful for self defense? Hits hard, low recoil, lots of rounds. Questionable if you're hunting for a bad guy but if at all possible you should simply be holding a position and waiting for the cops.

 

[bilby]

And note--you're admitting that this is simply a step towards banning.

Nobody's admitting anything.

It's not something concealed or shameful; The bleeding obviously desirable end point is for guns of all kinds to become extremely rare, and most importantly for "defence" to cease to be a legal reason to own a firearm.

That's how it already is in the civilised world, and the sky has not yet fallen.

And note -- What I describe isn't "banning". Hunters can still hunt; Sporting shooters can still compete; Anyone who meets the entry requirements can still join the police force, the army, or the national guard. The only losers would be gun makers, gun lobbyists, and, well, losers - criminals, and people who are too dumb to grasp that a gun isn't a defensive weapon, and shouldn't be used as an ego boosting fashion accessory.

 

[bilby]

And why are they not useful for self defense?

Because defence requires that first you come under attack, and the Mexican standoff is a fictional and impossible situation.

If you're armed with a gun and your attacker isn't, then a gun is a disproportionate response to what they're trying to do.

If they're armed with a gun and you aren't, you're entirely at their mercy.

If you're both armed, the dead person will be whoever doesn't shoot first. And the easy way to determine whether someone is the aggressor or the defender is (... drum roll ...) that the aggressor shoots first.

That's why George Lucas's idea that Greedo shot first is both absolutely necessary to establish Han as the victim; And completely stupid in the light of his being the winner of the gunfight.

Guns are not for defence. They're for killing people. And good people don't shoot first, because good people don't kill somebody just because they suspect that somebody to be a threat.

The only way to make conflicts less dangerous is to ensure that neither adversary is armed. And that's hugely effective, because unarmed people avoid conflict far more often than armed ones do. An unarmed society is a polite society; Armed men are frequently unnecessarily aggressive arseholes, right up until they meet a bigger arsehole, and get shot.

 

[Rhea]

I just try to picture this IDIOTIC scenario of spraying your house with an AR15 to defend yourself due to a break in.

And all of the neighbors that you shoot. Your family members that you shoot. You do know that those bullets go through walls just fine, right?


Oh, I’m a big tough guy with my big many-shot gun. Wooo wooo. Look out for me!
As you come to my house so that you can steal the big burly weapon that I brag about


It’s just fucking stupid. I live in an area where virtually every household has multiple guns. And all of the people who actually use guns for hunting, for target shooting and even for ”self defense” know that an AR15-style gun is stupid, unless you plan to be the rampager. And we all live far enough away from each other that it’s unlikely that we’ll actually shoot into each other’s houses, but it’s still possible and a neighbor will be pissed as hell if your wild shots come near my house. We take great care to put our shooting ranges into hills.


And here we have this argument that the higher power, multiple high capacity magazine long gun with the pistol grip is somehow neeeeeeeeeded for freeeeeeeeedoms. And that it is somehow suitable for firing at intruders inside a house in any old direction you want. It’s a stupid fantasy and creates more death and distruction and you all are arguing that men’s egos are worth the carnage. For god’s sake, buy a hatchet and a security camera.

 

[TV and credit cards]

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either.

I do not think so, and neither should it be. It's a substantial restriction of gun ownership for a very limited to zero benefit. Small percentage of homicides is committed with these weapons and even those could easily be done with handguns or non-assaulty rifles. The OP shooting could easily have been accomplished with a Glock or two.

I really don't know why Democrats are so obsessed with banning so-called assault weapons instead of using their political capital pursuing more beneficial forms of gun control.

I see it as low fruit. Need to start somewhere, and these guns are the least useful for self defense and hunting.

And note--you're admitting that this is simply a step towards banning. Expect the gun groups to fight tooth and nail about it.

And why are they not useful for self defense? Hits hard, low recoil, lots of rounds. Questionable if you're hunting for a bad guy but if at all possible you should simply be holding a position and waiting for the cops.

What are you, an action movie hero? Where do these notions come from? Yes I know this can happen and when it does, it will seep into every crevice of the internet and no small portion of Americans will go into a tizzy. Lock and load.

Yes, even in the sanest of countries I suppose a person can be the victim of gun violence. In our special little country, now even more so. And no one can seem to figure out why. That is what you call sarcasm. Many of us actually do have a strong suspicion we know the answer: a superfluous amendment to our constitution. Where a sane government would have recognized it had outlived its usefulness once we established 73 federal law enforcement agencies, 50 primary state law enforcement agencies, 638 other state agencies. 1,733 special jurisdiction agencies, 3,063 sheriff's offices, and 12,501 municipal, county, tribal, and regional police departments, that a neighborhood forming up a well armed militia may no longer be necessary. That as long as we can by and large hold those law enforcement agencies together, that the police can police themselves and each other, we will not descend into anarchy and 390 million guns owned by 130 million people in a country of 330 million is not necessary. So civilian need of arms for protection from other civilians with arms should have never come into being and we would have had to content ourselves with killing each other though more laborious and creative methods like knives, U-haul trucks, pianos, and anvils.

 

[Worldtraveller]

This is not going to be overturned by SCOTUS either.

I do not think so, and neither should it be. It's a substantial restriction of gun ownership for a very limited to zero benefit. Small percentage of homicides is committed with these weapons and even those could easily be done with handguns or non-assaulty rifles. The OP shooting could easily have been accomplished with a Glock or two.

I really don't know why Democrats are so obsessed with banning so-called assault weapons instead of using their political capital pursuing more beneficial forms of gun control.

I see it as low fruit. Need to start somewhere, and these guns are the least useful for self defense and hunting.

And note--you're admitting that this is simply a step towards banning. Expect the gun groups to fight tooth and nail about it.

And why are they not useful for self defense? Hits hard, low recoil, lots of rounds. Questionable if you're hunting for a bad guy but if at all possible you should simply be holding a position and waiting for the cops.

Jeebus fucking christ.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And why are they not useful for self defense? Hits hard, low recoil, lots of rounds.

So, how is having a weapon like that helping in the situation of an armed intruder?

Homeowner: I have a semi-automatic weapon!
Armed Intruder: Prove it!
Homeowner: Well, I'd have to shot several shots in quick succession which could be risky to both the stuff in my home and those living around me.
Armed Intruder: I hear that. This is why I use a simpler gun.
Homeowner: How is that working for you?
Armed Intruder: Pretty good. I mean, people fear any type of gun, as long as they don't look like toys. And guns that can spray bullets really only draws attention. I want to be in and out before people know what happened.
Homeowner: Interesting. Maybe I should consider switching the type of gun I have.
Armed Intruder: I can't say that you have a semi-automatic isn't a big deal, but to be fair, if you were armed with a shotgun, I'm more than likely going to flee immediately. Not looking for a fair fight.
Homeowner: I never really considered that before.
Armed Intruder: Most NRA types don't.
Homeowner: I've got several other guns I could grab if you'd let me.
Armed Intruder: No problem... I've already grabbed what I wanted. Have a nice day.
Homeowner: You too... hey wait a sec...

 

[Elixir]

And why are they not useful for self defense? Hits hard, low recoil, lots of rounds.

So, how is having a weapon like that helping in the situation of an armed intruder?

Homeowner: I have a semi-automatic weapon!
Armed Intruder: Prove it!
Homeowner: Well, I'd have to shot several shots in quick succession which could be risky to both the stuff in my home and those living around me.
Armed Intruder: I hear that. This is why I use a simpler gun.
Homeowner: How is that working for you?
Armed Intruder: Pretty good. I mean, people fear any type of gun, as long as they don't look like toys. And guns that can spray bullets really only draws attention. I want to be in and out before people know what happened.
Homeowner: Interesting. Maybe I should consider switching the type of gun I have.
Armed Intruder: I can't say that you have a semi-automatic isn't a big deal, but to be fair, if you were armed with a shotgun, I'm more than likely going to flee immediately. Not looking for a fair fight.
Homeowner: I never really considered that before.
Armed Intruder: Most NRA types don't.
Homeowner: I've got several other guns I could grab if you'd let me.
Armed Intruder: No problem... I've already grabbed what I wanted. Have a nice day.
Homeowner: You too... hey wait a sec...

As you illustrate, even home intrusions don’t rise to the level of terror attendant to a “mental health problem” manifesting as a crazy person with an AR, spraying lead and death in a public venue, church, school or crowd. That more people experience home intrusions is irrelevant.

 

[Gospel]

As the Intruder jogs off.

Homeowner: Well, that was a surprisingly educational break-in!! But next time, could we schedule it!? I'd like to be ready with a notepad!
Armed Intruder: I'll consider it!! Though, honestly, I was hoping for a bit more stealth and a bit less chat!!
Homeowner: Fair enough!! But hey, if you ever get tired of the intruder business, you might have a future in home security consulting!
Armed Intruder: Thanks, I'll keep that in mind!! Just remember, a good chat can sometimes be more disarming than a shotgun!!
Homeowner: Noted!! But next time, maybe just leave a business card instead of taking my TV!!

 

[TSwizzle]

This is the incredible moment a wealthy Los Angeles father pulled a gun on two masked intruders who attempted to break into his house. The father, who has not been identified, was approached by one of the masked robbers from behind as he walked up to his home in the affluent Mid-City neighborhood around 7.30pm on Saturday. The homeowner then reached for his gun and started a shootout with the intruders. 'There was nothing in my house that was worth dying for. But I was willing to die for my family,' the man told KABC.

Daily Mail

Here in practically lawless Los Angeles, having a gun on you comes in handy.

 

[Gospel]

My neighbor recently had an AR stolen from his home, and frankly, he's been quite careless with it. The theft unfolded unexpectedly: an old friend of his, who brought along his family and an unfamiliar companion, dropped by for a visit. While my neighbor stepped out to the store, the acquaintance, who had initially come with his friend, returned alone. This time, he broke in through the back door and took the AR. After the theft was discovered, a neighbor shared security camera footage with the police, and they're currently investigating. This incident has left me feeling quite unsettled, especially since EDC is happening this weekend, and my wife will be attending. It's unsettling to think about why that weapon was specifically targeted, either way it's another deadly weapon out in the wild right now taken from someone who legally obtained it without any training in gun safety or storage requirements what's so ever that might have prevented this.

 

[bilby]

For god’s sake, buy a hatchet and a security camera.

The most effective way to prevent home invasion is to get a dog.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And why are they not useful for self defense?

They are, just like an RPG, or ringing your home with claymores. Or you could buy some grenades and an M60 on the cheap. Or better yet go quad fifties. That baby says a whole lot quick.

But for some seemingly sane reason those armaments are not permitted to circulate in the general public. We should just recognize that possession of an AR15 type weapon is indicative of mild paranoia at least.

 

[Gospel]

For god’s sake, buy a hatchet and a security camera.

The most effective way to prevent home invasion is to get a dog.

In your area, that approach is probably quite effective, but in my location, it's unlikely to yield the same results.

Man and woman charged for breaking into home, shooting dog

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note--you're admitting that this is simply a step towards banning.

Nobody's admitting anything.

It's not something concealed or shameful; The bleeding obviously desirable end point is for guns of all kinds to become extremely rare, and most importantly for "defence" to cease to be a legal reason to own a firearm.

In other words, a de-facto ban.

And what is your obsession about self defense with firearms?

That's how it already is in the civilised world, and the sky has not yet fallen.

And your criminals are a lot bolder than ours.

And note -- What I describe isn't "banning". Hunters can still hunt; Sporting shooters can still compete; Anyone who meets the entry requirements can still join the police force, the army, or the national guard. The only losers would be gun makers, gun lobbyists, and, well, losers - criminals, and people who are too dumb to grasp that a gun isn't a defensive weapon, and shouldn't be used as an ego boosting fashion accessory.

And the battered woman who finally left her abuser.

Or (local case, some years back) what should she have done when she woke up to her ex in her bedroom? Fortunately, she turned him into swiss cheese before she had to find out what his plans were.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And why are they not useful for self defense?

Because defence requires that first you come under attack, and the Mexican standoff is a fictional and impossible situation.

If you're armed with a gun and your attacker isn't, then a gun is a disproportionate response to what they're trying to do.

Except that's not how the world actually works. Legally and morally deadly force is deadly force. It is completely irrelevant if your force is far more deadly than theirs. Also, the threshold is substantial bodily harm--you can shoot someone armed with a dick. (Someone trying to rape you.)

If they're armed with a gun and you aren't, you're entirely at their mercy.

Which is basically what happens when there isn't a gun involved.

If you're both armed, the dead person will be whoever doesn't shoot first. And the easy way to determine whether someone is the aggressor or the defender is (... drum roll ...) that the aggressor shoots first.

Nope. It comes down to who was acting lawfully.

Realistically, if you're in a public space and their objective is to kill you then they're probably going to win. However, there are awful lot more scenarios than that. Intruder breaks in, your best option if available is to stay behind a chokepoint and cover it. Shoot if the intruder enters, otherwise wait for the cops. If the stress doesn't mess you up too badly that's basically a certain win for the defender. (And that's why police are so cautious about clearing buildings. They know how it would go down.)

The only way to make conflicts less dangerous is to ensure that neither adversary is armed. And that's hugely effective, because unarmed people avoid conflict far more often than armed ones do. An unarmed society is a polite society; Armed men are frequently unnecessarily aggressive arseholes, right up until they meet a bigger arsehole, and get shot.

It makes conflict less dangerous but that doesn't equate to better outcomes.

Most of our burglars won't enter an occupied house--they fear an armed homeowner a lot more than they fear the police. Yours pretty much don't care, a homeowner who doesn't get out of the way fast enough ends up hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My neighbor recently had an AR stolen from his home, and frankly, he's been quite careless with it. The theft unfolded unexpectedly: an old friend of his, who brought along his family and an unfamiliar companion, dropped by for a visit. While my neighbor stepped out to the store, the acquaintance, who had initially come with his friend, returned alone. This time, he broke in through the back door and took the AR. After the theft was discovered, a neighbor shared security camera footage with the police, and they're currently investigating. This incident has left me feeling quite unsettled, especially since EDC is happening this weekend, and my wife will be attending. It's unsettling to think about why that weapon was specifically targeted, either way it's another deadly weapon out in the wild right now taken from someone who legally obtained it without any training in gun safety or storage requirements what's so ever that might have prevented this.

Guns fence well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For god’s sake, buy a hatchet and a security camera.

The most effective way to prevent home invasion is to get a dog.

Dogs are useful against burglars. They're useless against home invasion.

 

[bilby]

In other words, a de-facto ban.

Well, no.

But if you want to call it that, I really don't care.