***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[5 digit know nothing]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party.I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

What if Ford created a much smaller car, ran ads with children under 10 driving it, and marketed it as "my first car"? Would it be OK to sue them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec7OAB2k1QY]Like a Mustang?

 

[timschochet]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party.I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

What if Ford created a much smaller car, ran ads with children under 10 driving it, and marketed it as "my first car"? Would it be OK to sue them?

That's a battery operated toy, and obviously, unsupervised, it's dangerous enough. I'm talking about a real automobile that can go from 0-60, that runs on gasoline and is designed for kids. That is the correct analogy.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

So a 10 year old is not a "child"? And this 10 year old who you say should be allowed to shoot, is he allowed a rifle that has been made to fit his size? Or does he have to dangerously wield a rifle he can't even hold up straight?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party. I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

What if Ford created a much smaller car, ran ads with children under 10 driving it, and marketed it as "my first car"? Would it be OK to sue them?

Like a go cart?

 

[timschochet]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

So a 10 year old is not a "child"? And this 10 year old who you say should be allowed to shoot, is he allowed a rifle that has been made to fit his size? Or does he have to dangerously wield a rifle he can't even hold up straight?

The reason I wrote 10 or 12 is because some children are big enough, and mature enough, to handle adult items. If they aren't, then they shouldn't use them. My point is that I don't believe firearms should be designed so that they can used by someone other than an adult.

 

[timschochet]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party. I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

What if Ford created a much smaller car, ran ads with children under 10 driving it, and marketed it as "my first car"? Would it be OK to sue them?

Like a go cart?

You're a little late.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party.I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

What if Ford created a much smaller car, ran ads with children under 10 driving it, and marketed it as "my first car"? Would it be OK to sue them?

There are many dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, atv's, go carts that'll do 60... That stuff is all marketed to children..

And btw, you don't need gas power to get to 60.. They make electric motors for these that will do it now as well..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

So a 10 year old is not a "child"? And this 10 year old who you say should be allowed to shoot, is he allowed a rifle that has been made to fit his size? Or does he have to dangerously wield a rifle he can't even hold up straight?

The reason I wrote 10 or 12 is because some children are big enough, and mature enough, to handle adult items. If they aren't, then they shouldn't use them. My point is that I don't believe firearms should be designed so that they can used by someone other than an adult.

So you don't really have an age limit.. Just if they are called children, and are under a certain size, and maturity level.. This will be a nice piece of legislation you're working on. What if they are of proper maturity level but are a smaller person? You know maturity and size are not the same thing right? What about a smaller adult woman? Can she use a smaller version? is she allowed pink?

You know some hand guns can be picked up and used by children rather easily right? So, a small hand gun is ok, but a rifle designed to teach children to shoot responsibly is not?

 

[Cookiemonster]

The reason I wrote 10 or 12 is because some children are big enough, and mature enough, to handle adult items. If they aren't, then they shouldn't use them. My point is that I don't believe firearms should be designed so that they can used by someone other than an adult.

Because we have guns in our house AND we have children, I would rather them experience shooting and be taught the rules and see what the firearms are capable of to help quell the curiosity, and so they know what to do if they find a gun (be it in our house or on the school playground) rather than be tempted to play with it. I believe in keeping guns locked up and/or secured that are not on our person and directly under our control. That is my responsibility as a parent. I believe it is also my responsibility as a parent who owns guns to teach and educate my children about the use and consequences of guns in the case that an error is made by someone in my house in gun security or even outside of my house or my control.

Isn't it just scary to think that even 40 years ago, a 7 year old could grab his .22 and go hike the hills outside of town with his 11 year old brother who is wielding a 30/30 rifle and be out until dinner time (my dad did this frequently as a child and nobody was ever hurt). How did we avoid so many mass shootings back then? How many of you would just about piss yourself if you saw two elementary age kids carrying rifles down the street today? Yeah, we have not taken any steps in disarming this country or vilifying tools. I think I'd rather see a 9 year old carrying a rifle down the street than another teenager texting while driving!

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young.

So it should be up to the parent, but not younger than 10 or 12?

 

[DaVinci]

I'd be cool with eliminating a lot of those... if you would be cool with gun manufacturers paying for damages arriving for wrongful injury/deaths and accidental injury/death that occur with the use of the items they manufacture.

I'd be cool with that too. Every time a gun malfunction causes injury or death, they should bear some responsibility. If not a manufacturing defect and rather a result of careless/improper use, or failure to maintain the integrity of the firearm, the responsibility falls on the end user or responsible party.I can't fathom suing the makers of a gun for being used improperly, just as I can't fault Ford if your car is stolen by a joyriding teenager who causes an accident, or because your bald tires blow out and you hit an oncoming car on the freeway.

What if Ford created a much smaller car, ran ads with children under 10 driving it, and marketed it as "my first car"? Would it be OK to sue them?

Jimmy Johnson and Clint Bowyer started racing motorcycles at 5 years old. Jeff Gordon started racing quarter midgets at 5. Joey Logano started at 6. Denny Hamlin started racing go-karts at 7.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Here is a $700 safe available at many big-box stores. How much should we have to spend on self defense?

http://youtu.be/nBhOjWHbD6M

$450 for a shotgun

$500 for a pistol

$30 for dealer registration fees (background check)

$30 for another background check to buy the pistol two months after the shotgun

$150 for a class

$150 for a concealed carry permit

$700 for a safe

$50 for a holster

$70 for a holster that works

$60 for a belt to carry the holster that doesn't kill my back.

$50 for a concealed carry permit renewal after 2 years

$50 for a class to renew the permit every 2 years

$2000 for a safe that actually stops a 17 year old with a prybar and 10 minutes to spend.

$50 per gun purchase for Tim's legislation to make him feel safer about me owning a gun.

$25 for annual NRA membership because I don't have the resources to fight congressional battles and billionaire governors on my own.

$30 per 50 rounds of target ammo to practice with times at least 10 boxes annually so I'm competent enough to not scare Tim.

Good thing I'm not poor and can afford to arm myself rather than steal someone else's gun for free.

Edit to add link to safe video I forgot to include in original post.

 

[Spanky267]

So, NRA supporters? Are you OK with Cricket and other companies marketing guns to small children? Is this a part of your 2nd Amendment freedoms?

If you actually knew anything about guns you would know that the Cricket is not directly marketed to children. You wont see adds for them in childrens magazines or television programming. You wont find them in the toy department at Wal-Mart. the Cricket is a small bolt action, single shot, .22 caliber rifle. Similar to the rifles I used for target shooting in JROTC.

The real tragedy is that the parents didnt properly secure the gun and it should not have been stored in a loaded condition. The fault here is not on the gun or the manufacturer but the parents. The gun didnt fire itself. The gun was left in an unsafe condition by the parents and it resulted in the death of one of their children. The parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

I can tell you that I fired .22 caliber rifles and handguns at that age. Under the direct supervision of my father. I was never allowed to handle any of our firearms unless he was supervising and as a matter of fact I never knew where they were stored in our house. I suspect they were kept in my parents bedroom, but that part of the house was off limits to my brother and I. I fired and M1 Garand at 12 years old and again under the supervision of my dad and my uncles.

When a person dies as a result of being obese do we blame McDonalds and Coca Cola? Or do we acknowledge that the individual has some role in his own life. In the instance of the shooting the responsibility isnt on the minor child but rather his parents to ensure that he cant misuse the firearm.

Obviously these parents did not impart the need to be careful around firearms to their child. He used a real firearm as a toy and the results were fatal. Truly sad.

keep your head in the ####### sand. The guns are pink and one of their tag lines is "my first rifle."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&q=cricket+guns+for+sale&biw=1366&bih=681&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rE2EUc6EEJDW9QT674CYCQ#um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C2ARAB_enUS444US479&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cricket+guns&oq=cricket+guns&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l3.9158.11673.0.12349.9.9.0.0.0.0.284.1058.6j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.f-0m5s919ys&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.dmg&fp=f28b3d078ec84930&biw=1366&bih=681

It would be a childs first rifle. These arent the only pink weapons on the market. I am both a parent and a gun owner. I have frequented many sporting goods stores, gun stores and even a few gun shows. I have never seen these at any of my local gun stores. I have seen one at a Wal-Mart. I have also seen them at the gun shows that I have been to.

But to reiterate what another poster mentioned. I watch alot of childrens television programming and the commercials that come with them. I have never seen an advertisement for a BB gun, let alone a rifle like this. We also had a subscription to Boys Life when my boys were in scouting. You'd think for sure they would advertise there. No? Well never saw an ad for any firearms there either.

This company may make red, pink, purple, blue or orange rifles. They may also be designed to be used by children. But they dont seem to be actively marketing them to kids. I also read alot of firearms magazines and guess what not even any ads in there for these rifles or any of the other lines the company offers. The fact that these rifles are designed to be used by children does not magically absolve the parents of any responsibility. They are the ones who purchased it, gave it to their son and then stored it improperly. News reports have it that the rifle was merely stored in a corner. Are you freaking kidding me! That is not how you properly store a firearm. My kids dont know where I keep my gun and that is the way it should be. They also know that if when they encounter a firearm that it is not to be touched and that all firearms should be considered loaded and dangerous. We dont even let them hang onto their BB guns.

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

The only place I have seen that so called "ad" has been on youtube and other internet outlets running stories on the incident. I havent seen it actually run as an ad anywhere and none of the stories state where this "ad" was run. Most likely it was on the manufacturers website and maybe their youtube channel if they have one.

 

[Spanky267]

If you actually knew anything about guns

Also, I am sick to death of the condescension of gun owners here. I fully admit to being ignorant about a lot of things. But when it comes to a pink or red rifle that is marketed to young children, there's not a whole lot I need to know.

Tim, you can have all the opinions you want anout all kinds of subjects. Problem is that you attempt to pass yourself off as some expert on so many subjects. Of late guns and gun control are one of those subjects. If you have not even the foggiest concept of how guns function or what they are designed for or which guns are actually powerful as opposed to scary looking it diminishes your credibility.

There's not a whole lot you need to know because you never took the time to learn about the company in question or the rifle it markets. You've basically taken what you've heard on the news and regurgitated it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

pwned

 

[mad sweeney]

I saw the commercial last night on MSNBC. It was definitely designed for children to watch. So you can find all the excuses for them you want, you can try and hold the parents responsible (and they ARE responsible, don't get me wrong), but the manufacturers of a pink rifle designed for a kid are scumbags. And they are responsible as well. Your unwillingness to blame the gun manufacturers for ANYTHING is really pathetic.

I've seen the commercial as well, I had to look for it..

The child in the commercial is obviously no younger than 8, and more likely around 10 years old.

And I saw nothing in that commercial that makes me think it was designed for a child viewer. Maybe you can better explain your claim here.. The narrator on the commercial is talking about safety, affordability, and accuracy..

There are children in the commercial. Is that how you come to the conclusion that it was "designed for children to watch"? Anything with a child in it is designed for a child to watch? I can think of plenty of things that would be marketed to parents that include children in the advertisement..

You know why I had to look for it? Because that commercial is not placed in any video, TV channel, or movie that a child would watch.. Which blows apart your "they market these to children" and the "It was definitely designed for children to watch" argument..

I'm still waiting for you to show me one instance where this rifle was marketed directly to children..

Yeah, you're the guy to be demanding proof from others...

 

[timschochet]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

No crickets. I already addressed it. I don't find it a worthwhile analogy.

If you think it's OK to have a 5 year old shoot a gun under ANY circumstances, that's on you. I find it a ridiculous position, but then I find many of the pro-NRA positions ridiculous.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

No crickets. I already addressed it. I don't find it a worthwhile analogy.

If you think it's OK to have a 5 year old shoot a gun under ANY circumstances, that's on you. I find it a ridiculous position, but then I find many of the pro-NRA positions ridiculous.

So now you're saying the NRA promotes 5 years olds shooting guns? Strawman....

 

[[icon]]

I hate to break up the endless string of 47 embedded quote posts... (C'mon lazy ####ers)... But I must say:

This threads some how managed to reach an all time high on page 67,129 when Captain Cut-n-Paste (timmay) calls someone out for cut and pasting.

That is some funny #### right there

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

No crickets. I already addressed it. I don't find it a worthwhile analogy.

If you think it's OK to have a 5 year old shoot a gun under ANY circumstances, that's on you. I find it a ridiculous position, but then I find many of the pro-NRA positions ridiculous.

WTF are you talking about? You're the one who said we don't let people younger than 16 year olds drive. But we do. Under the same circumstances where we let 5 year olds shoot guns. And earlier in this thread you said the parents are the ones who should decide what age is appropriate for their children to shoot a gun, when you were asked specifically what age minimum should be in place. I wish you'd show some consistency and quit moving goalposts. You're really looking bad in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

No crickets. I already addressed it. I don't find it a worthwhile analogy.

If you think it's OK to have a 5 year old shoot a gun under ANY circumstances, that's on you. I find it a ridiculous position, but then I find many of the pro-NRA positions ridiculous.

WTF are you talking about? You're the one who said we don't let people younger than 16 year olds drive. But we do. Under the same circumstances where we let 5 year olds shoot guns. And earlier in this thread you said the parents are the ones who should decide what age is appropriate for their children to shoot a gun, when you were asked specifically what age minimum should be in place. I wish you'd show some consistency and quit moving goalposts. You're really looking bad in this thread.

Got to go to bed, but I just want to clarify this wasn't moving the goalposts. I DO believe that ultimately parents should decide the appropriate age; certainly that should be the case legally- but I also have an opinion as to what SHOULD be an appropriate age, and IMO under 10 is too young.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

No crickets. I already addressed it. I don't find it a worthwhile analogy.

If you think it's OK to have a 5 year old shoot a gun under ANY circumstances, that's on you. I find it a ridiculous position, but then I find many of the pro-NRA positions ridiculous.

WTF are you talking about? You're the one who said we don't let people younger than 16 year olds drive. But we do. Under the same circumstances where we let 5 year olds shoot guns. And earlier in this thread you said the parents are the ones who should decide what age is appropriate for their children to shoot a gun, when you were asked specifically what age minimum should be in place. I wish you'd show some consistency and quit moving goalposts. You're really looking bad in this thread.

Got to go to bed, but I just want to clarify this wasn't moving the goalposts. I DO believe that ultimately parents should decide the appropriate age; certainly that should be the case legally- but I also have an opinion as to what SHOULD be an appropriate age, and IMO under 10 is too young.

Is that your "Expert" opinion?

 

[DaVinci]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

No crickets. I already addressed it. I don't find it a worthwhile analogy.

If you think it's OK to have a 5 year old shoot a gun under ANY circumstances, that's on you. I find it a ridiculous position, but then I find many of the pro-NRA positions ridiculous.

No it's not OK under any circumstances, but under proper parental supervision it is perfectly acceptable.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/video-shows-liberator-a-3d-printed-gun-being-fired]The LIBERATOR

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://spreadlibertynews.com/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

Eric Holder says feds will ignore state laws protecting second amendment rights..

 

[Fat Nick]

The LIBERATOR

Saw this on Yahoo! It's so rudimentary. It shoots 1 round, and I'd be impressed if it could hold up to 5 shots with re-loads looking at the parts. Plastic just isn't durable enough. The one on the yahoo photo looks like the trigger already broke off. In all honesty, "making" something that fires a bullet is a lot different than making a gun. I could take a piece of pipe with the right diameter, fit a bullet on it firmly, and hit the end with a hammer/nail and that'd fire a bullet.

It's a scary thought because they'll only get better at printing these, but for now, it's not really a gun as much as it's something that can fire a bullet...of course I guess it's open to arguement if "something that fires a bullet" is automatically "a gun."

 

[Novice2]

The LIBERATOR

There is no reason for anyone to have this. Anyone who is in possession of this or the print plans should be locked up! Some senator from NY

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://i.imgur.com/LH1W0.jpg]Piers

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://spreadlibertynews.com/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

Eric Holder says feds will ignore state laws protecting second amendment rights..

http://i.imgur.com/WwcJHMd.jpg]Kansas Secretary of State responds to Holder

I wonder if Kris W. Kobach is a "first year law student"?

 

[FootballDummy]

http://spreadlibertynews.com/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

Eric Holder says feds will ignore state laws protecting second amendment rights..

Kansas Secretary of State responds to Holder

I wonder if Kris W. Kobach is a "first year law student"?

Might as well be. Good luck arguing that all guns in Kansas are made in Kansas and will never leave Kansas.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://spreadlibertynews.com/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

Eric Holder says feds will ignore state laws protecting second amendment rights..

Here's the actual letter.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/138995467/Eric-Holder-Threatens-Kansas-Over-Gun-Control-Nullification

I have no idea what the feds think they can do about gun owners owning guns in Kansas.

They need a warrant under the 3rd and 4th amendments so they can't just bust into people's homes to look for guns.

The beauty of our Constitution is that the rights in the amendments all support each other.

Obama is doing all this by executive order anyway and nothing can get passed in Congress because Obama's been out to lunch. The whole thing is ridiculous, just posturing to raise money.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://spreadlibertynews.com/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

Eric Holder says feds will ignore state laws protecting second amendment rights..

Kansas Secretary of State responds to Holder

I wonder if Kris W. Kobach is a "first year law student"?

Might as well be. Good luck arguing that all guns in Kansas are made in Kansas and will never leave Kansas.

Nobody is arguing that, nice try though.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://spreadlibertynews.com/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

Eric Holder says feds will ignore state laws protecting second amendment rights..

Kansas Secretary of State responds to Holder

I wonder if Kris W. Kobach is a "first year law student"?

Might as well be. Good luck arguing that all guns in Kansas are made in Kansas and will never leave Kansas.

I know that guy. Met him when he was in law school, he taught a seminar for undergrads that I took. Incredibly smart guy. But also incredibly dogmatic and devoted to originalism, especially as it pertains to the commerce clause. He knows his argument is probably a loser, he just wants the chance to make it.

He should have left off that second to last paragraph though. That crosses the line from "Constitutional scholar" to "wild-eyed partisan" and makes him look less credible.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Kansas is not the only state to pass that law, Montana has had it on the books for 4 years.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Kansas is not the only state to pass that law, Montana has had it on the books for 4 years.

Yup. And the feds have no intent to defer to it. Some people brought a claim to bar Justice from enforcing federal law due to the Montana law and their claim was tossed. Appeal is pending.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Kansas is not the only state to pass that law, Montana has had it on the books for 4 years.

Yup. And the feds have no intent to defer to it. Some people brought a claim to bar Justice from enforcing federal law due to the Montana law and their claim was tossed. Appeal is pending.

Jindal in Louisiana is suggesting one of these too.

On the Kansas law - This part is funny though:

Under the law, “any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Brownback that the law is unconstitutional ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/03/fight-brewing-in-kansas-over-gun-control-nullification-laws/

Hey Sam, any attempts to protect the constitution will be treated as unconstitutional.

 

[ichris]

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

"Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center."

Anti-gun brainwashing propaganda at work. All the new govt funds spent on 'gun violence research' will continue fueling this ignorance.

 

[timschochet]

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

"Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center."

Anti-gun brainwashing propaganda at work. All the new govt funds spent on 'gun violence research' will continue fueling this ignorance.

I don't think that's it. I noted much earlier in the thread that gun violence was down in recent years.

The main reason the public thinks is the opposite, IMO, is that we live in an anecdotal society. We hear about the worst possible things on television, and think it could happen to us. This is the same reason that so many gun owners talk about the imminence of home invasion. It's the same reason that Arizonans supported sb1080, concerned with violence caused by illegal immigrants, despite the fact that Arizona is one of the very safest places to live. It's the reason we behave in a thousand different ways, thinking that the one in a million could actually happen to us.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

"Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center."

Anti-gun brainwashing propaganda at work. All the new govt funds spent on 'gun violence research' will continue fueling this ignorance.

I don't think that's it. I noted much earlier in the thread that gun violence was down in recent years.

The main reason the public thinks is the opposite, IMO, is that we live in an anecdotal society. We hear about the worst possible things on television, and think it could happen to us. This is the same reason that so many gun owners talk about the imminence of home invasion. It's the same reason that Arizonans supported sb1080, concerned with violence caused by illegal immigrants, despite the fact that Arizona is one of the very safest places to live. It's the reason we behave in a thousand different ways, thinking that the one in a million could actually happen to us.

*** TIMMAY EXAGERRATION ALERT ***

1 in Million would assume according to Timmay there are only ~300 home invasions per year.

However, according to FBI UCR there were over 9 million reported incidents of property crime in 2011, 2.2 million were burglaries. While every burglary is not classified as a home invasion, the rate of a dwelling being occupied (particularly with the rise in unemployment) is certainly higher than 0.01% during these incidents, now factor in all incidents that go unreported to the police every year and you have a number much much greater than what Timmay is citing.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Kansas is not the only state to pass that law, Montana has had it on the books for 4 years.

Yup. And the feds have no intent to defer to it. Some people brought a claim to bar Justice from enforcing federal law due to the Montana law and their claim was tossed. Appeal is pending.

Jindal in Louisiana is suggesting one of these too.

On the Kansas law - This part is funny though:

>Under the law, “any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Brownback that the law is unconstitutional ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/03/fight-brewing-in-kansas-over-gun-control-nullification-laws/

Hey Sam, any attempts to protect the constitution will be treated as unconstitutional.

I guess. Of course that language in the state statute basically amounts to "things that are unconstitutional are unconstitutional." Which is more ridiculous. It's hard to address ridiculous things without letting their ridiculousness seep in to it.

The key is the application, not the law. The feds will disregard the state law as meaningless and exercise their jurisdiction if people violate federal law. If the state or anyone else tries to stop them, they'll have the supremacy clause to deal with, and they'll lose, just like the Montana idiots who tried to stop the feds there based on state law have lost and will continue to lose. I suspect the legislatures that enact this meaningless dribble know this, and what they're doing is just political posturing.

 

[Clifford]

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

"Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center."

Anti-gun brainwashing propaganda at work. All the new govt funds spent on 'gun violence research' will continue fueling this ignorance.

Really surprised that only 6% said no that the drop in gun crime does not weaken the case for gun control. Why does making progress = stop trying?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Well, yesterday I asked if you guys would be willing to extend your beliefs so far as to defend a company like Cricket, and I have my answer: you are. 5 Digit, as always, cuts and pastes NRA rhetoric. Carolina argues that the kid in the commercial is 8, not 5. Spangly says this is is proof of my lack of knowledge about guns. And so on.None of you are willing to concede that there might be a problem with a small firearm, painted pink, marketed and designed for children. And that's sad.

How old do you think the child of a hunter, or sport shooter, or a rural family should be before his father teaches them how to properly use a rifle? This is an easy question. Please answer it..

I don't know. That should be up to the parent. Perhaps 10 or 12? I certainly think under 10 is too young. We don't let children under 16 drive cars. A firearm is a deadly weapon, obviously.I think guns are adult items. Older kids can certainly handle them, with supervision, but I have a huge problem with guns being designed for children. That's where I draw the line.

We absolutely let children under 16 drive, under the same circumstances where we'd let a 5 year old shoot a gun.

:Crickets: from Tim when proven wrong again. How typical.

No crickets. I already addressed it. I don't find it a worthwhile analogy.

If you think it's OK to have a 5 year old shoot a gun under ANY circumstances, that's on you. I find it a ridiculous position, but then I find many of the pro-NRA positions ridiculous.

WTF are you talking about? You're the one who said we don't let people younger than 16 year olds drive. But we do. Under the same circumstances where we let 5 year olds shoot guns. And earlier in this thread you said the parents are the ones who should decide what age is appropriate for their children to shoot a gun, when you were asked specifically what age minimum should be in place. I wish you'd show some consistency and quit moving goalposts. You're really looking bad in this thread.

Got to go to bed, but I just want to clarify this wasn't moving the goalposts. I DO believe that ultimately parents should decide the appropriate age; certainly that should be the case legally- but I also have an opinion as to what SHOULD be an appropriate age, and IMO under 10 is too young.

Got my first gun (pellet) when I was 5 and was taught proper usage and storage by a responsible adult. Got a 12-gauge when I was 9.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

"Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center."

Anti-gun brainwashing propaganda at work. All the new govt funds spent on 'gun violence research' will continue fueling this ignorance.

Really surprised that only 6% said no that the drop in gun crime does not weaken the case for gun control. Why does making progress = stop trying?

Stop trying what? Gun control did not cause the progress as noted in the article so why on earth would you keep resuscitating this dead horse?

Experts debate why overall crime has fallen, attributing the drop to all manner of causes, such as the withering of the crack cocaine market and surging incarceration rates.

Some researchers have even linked dropping crime to reduced lead in gasoline, pointing out that lead can cause increased aggression and impulsive behavior in exposed children.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Ooops...

A microphone left on after the gavel fell at a New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday shows the “true view” of some of the senators toward gun owners, and provides proof that gun confiscation is a goal on which they agree, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs revealed in an email to members and supporters today. The group is the official NRA state association.

“The discussion that was caught, apparently among several senators and staff, is outrageous, and reveals legislators’ true view of gun owners,” ANJRPC reports.

“The discussion appears to be among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14), and at least one member of Senate Democratic staff,” the gun group’s email explains. A You Tube video of the “off the record” conversation is embedded in this column’s sidebar.

Among the lines heard in the recording:

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

"They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

The May 9 discussion is also currently available at the committee’s website, but the gun group fears “It is possible that the official recording will be sanitized following release of this alert, and the official YouTube video could be deleted, so be sure to listen to it promptly.”

That the legislators have utter contempt for the Second Amendment and its proponents is obvious. Also clear is they have provided an irrefutable rebuttal to anti-gun activists who ridicule fears of a “slippery slope” by claiming no one wants to take guns away. Clearly, these politicians do.

ANJRPC is asking its supporters to “immediately call [609-847-3700] AND fax [609-633-7254] the Senate Majority Office, tell them you are outraged by the misguided, disparaging, and clueless comments of those pushing the anti-gun bill package, and demand that Senate Democratic leadership hold the entire package of anti-gun bills currently scheduled for consideration by the full Senate on Monday, May 13.”

 

[timschochet]

Ooops...

A microphone left on after the gavel fell at a New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday shows the “true view” of some of the senators toward gun owners, and provides proof that gun confiscation is a goal on which they agree, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs revealed in an email to members and supporters today. The group is the official NRA state association.

“The discussion that was caught, apparently among several senators and staff, is outrageous, and reveals legislators’ true view of gun owners,” ANJRPC reports.

“The discussion appears to be among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14), and at least one member of Senate Democratic staff,” the gun group’s email explains. A You Tube video of the “off the record” conversation is embedded in this column’s sidebar.

Among the lines heard in the recording:

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

"They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

The May 9 discussion is also currently available at the committee’s website, but the gun group fears “It is possible that the official recording will be sanitized following release of this alert, and the official YouTube video could be deleted, so be sure to listen to it promptly.”

That the legislators have utter contempt for the Second Amendment and its proponents is obvious. Also clear is they have provided an irrefutable rebuttal to anti-gun activists who ridicule fears of a “slippery slope” by claiming no one wants to take guns away. Clearly, these politicians do.

ANJRPC is asking its supporters to “immediately call [609-847-3700] AND fax [609-633-7254] the Senate Majority Office, tell them you are outraged by the misguided, disparaging, and clueless comments of those pushing the anti-gun bill package, and demand that Senate Democratic leadership hold the entire package of anti-gun bills currently scheduled for consideration by the full Senate on Monday, May 13.”

OMG!! It's the slippery slope! Hide your guns!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Ooops...

A microphone left on after the gavel fell at a New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday shows the “true view” of some of the senators toward gun owners, and provides proof that gun confiscation is a goal on which they agree, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs revealed in an email to members and supporters today. The group is the official NRA state association.

“The discussion that was caught, apparently among several senators and staff, is outrageous, and reveals legislators’ true view of gun owners,” ANJRPC reports.

“The discussion appears to be among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14), and at least one member of Senate Democratic staff,” the gun group’s email explains. A You Tube video of the “off the record” conversation is embedded in this column’s sidebar.

Among the lines heard in the recording:

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

"They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

The May 9 discussion is also currently available at the committee’s website, but the gun group fears “It is possible that the official recording will be sanitized following release of this alert, and the official YouTube video could be deleted, so be sure to listen to it promptly.”

That the legislators have utter contempt for the Second Amendment and its proponents is obvious. Also clear is they have provided an irrefutable rebuttal to anti-gun activists who ridicule fears of a “slippery slope” by claiming no one wants to take guns away. Clearly, these politicians do.

ANJRPC is asking its supporters to “immediately call [609-847-3700] AND fax [609-633-7254] the Senate Majority Office, tell them you are outraged by the misguided, disparaging, and clueless comments of those pushing the anti-gun bill package, and demand that Senate Democratic leadership hold the entire package of anti-gun bills currently scheduled for consideration by the full Senate on Monday, May 13.”

Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate! Hide your guns!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another 1 in a million chance home invasion! Including 3 burglaries in a 3 week period in the same neighborhood, probably by the same group of armed robbers:

The attackers kicked in the front door to the southwest Houston home, roughed up the resident, then placed him in an upstairs closet.


But that holding place was where the resident kept his gun.

He would soon use it on one of the intruders, exchanging gunfire and sending the man to the hospital Tuesday afternoon, Houston police said.

The resident told police he was upstairs at the home in the 8200 block of Braeburn Valley Drive, south of Houston Baptist University, when three men kicked in the front door about 2 p.m. Tuesday.

The intruders attacked him and placed him in a closet, so they could ransack the home, said Sgt. Jerri Brandon with the Houston Police Department.

When he thought the intruders were gone, the man left the closet, armed with a gun that he kept there, he told police.

Downstairs, he encountered one of the men and the two exchanged gunfire, police said.

The resident, who lives at the home with his parents, was not injured.

1 wounded, others flee

The intruder, who appeared to be in his 20s, was shot in the shoulder and leg. He ran down the street and collapsed, police said.

The other two men fled in an older model Chevrolet Tahoe, police said. The homeowner told police that he did not know the attackers.

Craig Gaddis, who lives three houses down, said he heard three shots and walked out to find a man sprawled out on a nearby sidewalk. Another neighbor who also walked out called 911.

Gaddis, a shipping and receiving consultant who owns several handguns, said thieves kicked in the door on a nearby home about a week ago and burglars hit another home around the corner about three weeks ago.

"With what's happening, my neighbors and I are aware they're all connected," Gaddis, 45, said of the break-ins. "What happened today is exactly what guns are supposed to do - to protect your home and defend your life and your family."

The case will be referred to a Harris County grand jury without charges, Brandon said.

 

[jwp]

^^^

Cool story and its why we should always have the right to bear arms. Is anyone here arguing that guy needs to have his gun seized?