***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[5 digit know nothing]

^^^

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

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=671486&page=183entry15525239]Yep lots of people if you have been reading the thread.

This was in reference to http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=671486&page=187#entry15554391]Tim Exaggeration #146

 

[StrikeS2k]

Authorities: Hofstra student was killed by policeMINEOLA, N.Y. (AP) — Authorities say a police officer's bullet killed a New York college student during the response to a home invasion at an off-campus home.

Nassau County homicide squad Lt. John Azzata said Saturday night that Andrea Rebello was killed by a police officer as she was being held in a headlock by a masked intruder.

Azzata says the police officer opened fire as Dalton Smith made a motion to fire at the officers early Saturday morning.

Azzata says the officer fired eight shots, hitting Smith seven times and Rebello once in the head, killing her.

Earlier Saturday, police said Smith had an extensive criminal history and was wanted on a parole violation related to a first-degree robbery conviction.

http://news.yahoo.com/authorities-hofstra-student-killed-police-003456565.html

Why worry about homeowners accidentally shooting an innocent person while defending themselves or their property when you can just call the police to do it for you?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Gun Control is working so well in NYC, only 25 people shot in the past 48 hours.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/25-people-shot-48-hours-article-1.1361388

 

[Cookiemonster]

Not Timmy's gospel Washington Post, but even the liberal main stream media is starting to sour on the current administration.

http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&content=93764334&pageNum=-1

Let's not say anything about slippery slopes, or Fast and Furious, or sending military weapons to terrorist supporting countries.

 

[Chaka]

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.

So they accidentally locked him in the closet where he kept his gun (i.e. he didn't manage to get his gun when the intruders initially invaded the home and fight them off). And the intruders clearly were not trying to kill the homeowner (if they had wanted him dead they would have killed him, not locked him in the closet). So what exactly are you suggesting that this story says about the benefits of owning a gun and how does it offset the 800+ accidental gun deaths and thousands of suicides by gun that happen annually?

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

So they accidentally locked him in the closet where he kept his gun (i.e. he didn't manage to get his gun when the intruders initially invaded the home and fight them off). And the intruders clearly were not trying to kill the homeowner (if they had wanted him dead they would have killed him, not locked him in the closet). So what exactly are you suggesting that this story says about the benefits of owning a gun and how does it offset the 800+ accidental gun deaths and thousands of suicides by gun that happen annually?

This made me laugh. Maybe he should have made some coffeecake for them? Given them a warm breakfast? They were so nice.

 

[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.

So they accidentally locked him in the closet where he kept his gun (i.e. he didn't manage to get his gun when the intruders initially invaded the home and fight them off). And the intruders clearly were not trying to kill the homeowner (if they had wanted him dead they would have killed him, not locked him in the closet). So what exactly are you suggesting that this story says about the benefits of owning a gun and how does it offset the 800+ accidental gun deaths and thousands of suicides by gun that happen annually?

I missed the part where Home Invasion means they have to kill you.Clearly so much fail in your reply, is this really the best you can do?

(i.e. he didn't manage to get his gun when the intruders initially invaded the home and fight them off)

Did you read the part where three of them kicked in his front door at 2 in the afternoon?

And the intruders clearly were not trying to kill the homeowner (if they had wanted him dead they would have killed him, not locked him in the closet).

Did you read the part where the trio was armed and shot at him? "Downstairs, he encountered one of the men and the two exchanged gunfire, police said."Keep having faith in your fellow man that when three armed men kick in your ####### door at 2 in the afternoon that their guns are just for show and they don't want to hurt you.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You don't even need to enter the home or actually fire a weapon to be charged with murder in most states when the homeowner shoots and kills one of the accomplices involved in the home invasion.

My friends son was involved in an armed robbery with a friend of his. The homeowner shot his friend and killed him. Now my friend's son is in jail being charged with armed robbery and murder even though he never entered the home or shot the gun. Is there a minimum sentence in Florida for this type of crime? He has no prior record. Thank you.

 

[Chaka]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

And the intruders clearly were not trying to kill the homeowner (if they had wanted him dead they would have killed him, not locked him in the closet).

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

What are you angling at with these two posts? Guns should only be used to prevent intruders from murdering you? Do you have some special kind of e.s.p. that tells you what is going on in the mind of 3 armed men that kick your front door in during broad day light that tells you when they are intent on murdering you vs. only just locking you up in the closet? Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

 

[Chaka]

And the intruders clearly were not trying to kill the homeowner (if they had wanted him dead they would have killed him, not locked him in the closet).

>Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

What are you angling at with these two posts? Guns should only be used to prevent intruders from murdering you? Do you have some special kind of e.s.p. that tells you what is going on in the mind of 3 armed men that kick your front door in during broad day light that tells you when they are intent on murdering you vs. only just locking you up in the closet? Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

I am not sure what you are angling at either. You seem to be suggesting that the gun somehow save his life, even suggesting they fired at the homeowner when the article only says they exchanged fire. The logical reality is if they wanted him dead they would have killed him instead of locking him in the closet in the first place.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

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."

Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

 

[Chaka]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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."

Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

 

[StrikeS2k]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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.

"

Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

Noone said it did. Did you have a point to any of this or did you just feel like going off on a worthless tangent on a slow Saturday afternoon?

 

[Chaka]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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.

"Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

Noone said it did. Did you have a point to any of this or did you just feel like going off on a worthless tangent on a slow Saturday afternoon?

Perhaps you would like to explain 5 digit's reason for posting the article in the first place because that is what I would like to know.

The gun did not protect the homeowner so what is the point?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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.

"Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

Noone said it did. Did you have a point to any of this or did you just feel like going off on a worthless tangent on a slow Saturday afternoon?

Perhaps you would like to explain 5 digit's reason for posting the article in the first place because that is what I would like to know.

The gun did not protect the homeowner so what is the point?

Why would I try to explain someone else's reasons for posting? BTW, he explained it himself in one of his posts. If you don't know you can go back and look again. But you're the one who made it about whether or not the gun saved anyones life. This thread is about gun control, not whether guns save someones life every time they're used. So answer my question. Do you have a point or don't you?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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.

"Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

Noone said it did. Did you have a point to any of this or did you just feel like going off on a worthless tangent on a slow Saturday afternoon?

Perhaps you would like to explain 5 digit's reason for posting the article in the first place because that is what I would like to know.

The gun did not protect the homeowner so what is the point?

The point is, that if he didn't have a gun, only the criminals would have... That's bad...

 

[Chaka]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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.

"Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

Noone said it did. Did you have a point to any of this or did you just feel like going off on a worthless tangent on a slow Saturday afternoon?

Perhaps you would like to explain 5 digit's reason for posting the article in the first place because that is what I would like to know.

The gun did not protect the homeowner so what is the point?

The point is, that if he didn't have a gun, only the criminals would have... That's bad...

I agree if that's true but I'm not quite sure how you know that with any certainty. It would be far better if the homeowner had the gun and the criminals didn't, then again some people in here believe that the majority of illegal guns on the street are stolen from homeowners so perhaps it would be best if no one had guns. Of course then the big bad gubbment would getcha, oh my!

The bottom line is that the posted article really does nothing to advance the gun control debate and should not be held up as an example of why any form of gun control would be bad.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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."Chaka, What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

Noone said it did. Did you have a point to any of this or did you just feel like going off on a worthless tangent on a slow Saturday afternoon?

Perhaps you would like to explain 5 digit's reason for posting the article in the first place because that is what I would like to know. The gun did not protect the homeowner so what is the point?

The point is, that if he didn't have a gun, only the criminals would have... That's bad...

I agree if that's true but I'm not quite sure how you know that with any certainty. It would be far better if the homeowner had the gun and the criminals didn't, then again some people in here believe that the majority of illegal guns on the street are stolen from homeowners so perhaps it would be best if no one had guns. Of course then the big bad gubbment would getcha, oh my! The bottom line is that the posted article really does nothing to advance the gun control debate and should not be held up as an example of why any form of gun control would be bad.

An article about a home invasion of three armed intruders that get shot at by a homeowner's son after gun fire was exchanged does nothing to advance gun control because accordingly to your BIZZARO logic the homeowner's gun did not save his life? Let me ask you this, the fact that these three were caught, is there ANY CHANCE that a life was saved as a result of their arrest? According to your viewpoint, unless these three armed criminals went and killed someone after the home invasion, one of many they were suspected of then WHAT? I write "what" because nobody in this thread has any ####### clue what your point is, because you have the writing skills of a nine year old.Looks like it was a young boy (the homeowner's son) that was locked in the closet and shot one of the intruders:http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Resident-shoots-robber-during-gunbattle-in-southwest-Houston-207431391.html

 

[top dog]

Is anyone suggesting that the gun somehow saved this homeowners life?

>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.

"Chaka,

What do you think the chances are that the burglaries that have been happening in this neighborhood lately cease? It seems to me that preventing future burglaries by three armed, clearly dangerous individuals is a worthwhile outcome of this case.

So the answer is "No the gun did not save the homeowners life."

Noone said it did. Did you have a point to any of this or did you just feel like going off on a worthless tangent on a slow Saturday afternoon?

Perhaps you would like to explain 5 digit's reason for posting the article in the first place because that is what I would like to know.

The gun did not protect the homeowner so what is the point?

The point is, that if he didn't have a gun, only the criminals would have... That's bad...

I agree if that's true but I'm not quite sure how you know that with any certainty. It would be far better if the homeowner had the gun and the criminals didn't, then again some people in here believe that the majority of illegal guns on the street are stolen from homeowners so perhaps it would be best if no one had guns. Of course then the big bad gubbment would getcha, oh my!

The bottom line is that the posted article really does nothing to advance the gun control debate and should not be held up as an example of why any form of gun control would be bad.

The fact that you truly believe this is kind of troubling...

Let's go with your idea that it would be best if no one had guns. How exactly do we remove the countless guns that are out there right now? It is impossible. You can make fun of people who have different view points than you by attempting to portray them in a less than intelligent tone ("the big bad gubbment would getcha, on my!"), but your dream of no one having guns is even MORE of a silly idea that the "big bad gubbment" coming to get you.

 

[timschochet]

If you guys feel safer owning guns, or if it gives you pleasure, then own guns. Own as many as you want. Own as many types as you want. You'll get no complaint from me.

I just believe that, in the interest of public safety, convicted felons and the mentally ill should be prevented from owning guns. And in order to make this happen, there should be background checks on every gun sale or transfer, and every gun in this country should be registered. That's what happens in every other country on this planet with gun ownership.

We've argued it endlessly here, but I just don't understand how these ideas violate the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand how they would make us less safe. I think it's incredible we don't have this stuff in place already.

 

[Rayderr]

If you guys feel safer owning guns, or if it gives you pleasure, then own guns. Own as many as you want. Own as many types as you want. You'll get no complaint from me.

I just believe that, in the interest of public safety, convicted felons and the mentally ill should be prevented from owning guns. And in order to make this happen, there should be background checks on every gun sale or transfer, and every gun in this country should be registered. That's what happens in every other country on this planet with gun ownership.

We've argued it endlessly here, but I just don't understand how these ideas violate the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand how they would make us less safe. I think it's incredible we don't have this stuff in place already.

Did I miss hyperbole day again?

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Guy buys a Tavor at a gas station in Kentucky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyeE6Yx9lYI

 

[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.

So they accidentally locked him in the closet where he kept his gun (i.e. he didn't manage to get his gun when the intruders initially invaded the home and fight them off). And the intruders clearly were not trying to kill the homeowner (if they had wanted him dead they would have killed him, not locked him in the closet). So what exactly are you suggesting that this story says about the benefits of owning a gun and how does it offset the 800+ accidental gun deaths and thousands of suicides by gun that happen annually?

Here's an example where the homeowner did everything the intruders asked of him

Investigators are asking for help solving the murder of a Winter Park-area man who was killed during a home-invasion robbery last week.

Winter Park police are working with the Joint Homicide Investigation Team — a conglomerate of law-enforcement officials from around the region — to identify two men suspected of breaking into a home in the 1300 block of Loren Avenue.

Masked men stormed in at about 12:10 a.m. June 12, brandishing guns and ordering everyone, including Patrick Jackson, to the ground. Jackson was shot and later died of his injuries.

The first intruder is described a young man of medium build and height, wearing dark cargo shorts and a dark short-sleeved shirt.

The second is described as a young man with dreads about 6 feet tall, wearing dark long pants and a dark short-sleeved shirt.

 

[Sinn Fein]

once again, guns saving lives

 

[joffer]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

 

[Rayderr]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

I'm guessing that a person who leaves a 5 year old home alone is probably not going to take steps to make sure that a gun is safely secured.

 

[timschochet]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

 

[Rayderr]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

 

[timschochet]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

You don't know how to work a safe?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because owning a gun would make you leave a 5 year old child home buy himself there after he can hurt himself or be taken by a pedophile kidnapper.. Good point..

 

[timschochet]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

You don't know how to work a safe?

I do. I also know how to work an alarm system, which I prefer to a gun.

But my comment was not meant to be an argument in this case. What I wrote is for ME. If owning a gun makes you feel safer, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Spanky267]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

You would leave a gun unsecured in the presence of minor children or anyone for that matter?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

You don't know how to work a safe?

I do. I also know how to work an alarm system, which I prefer to a gun.

But my comment was not meant to be an argument in this case. What I wrote is for ME. If owning a gun makes you feel safer, I don't have a problem with that.

You need a little more self-confidence bud. I don't know why you'd think you'd be dumb enough to leave a 5 year old at home with an unsecured gun.

 

[Spanky267]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

You don't know how to work a safe?

I do. I also know how to work an alarm system, which I prefer to a gun.

But my comment was not meant to be an argument in this case. What I wrote is for ME. If owning a gun makes you feel safer, I don't have a problem with that.

Tim, you do understand that most criminals know that it takes several minutes for law enforcement to respond to alarm calls, right?

They know that they can break into a home, take what they want and flee the scene long before police arrive.

I have a security system myself, but its backed up by my dogs and my gun. The security system is more for when I'm not home then for when I am home.

 

[timschochet]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

You don't know how to work a safe?

I do. I also know how to work an alarm system, which I prefer to a gun.

But my comment was not meant to be an argument in this case. What I wrote is for ME. If owning a gun makes you feel safer, I don't have a problem with that.

Tim, you do understand that most criminals know that it takes several minutes for law enforcement to respond to alarm calls, right?

They know that they can break into a home, take what they want and flee the scene long before police arrive.

I have a security system myself, but its backed up by my dogs and my gun. The security system is more for when I'm not home then for when I am home.

Like I said, each to their own. I have no problem whatsoever with you having a gun. I am not suggesting that it's dangerous for you to own one, or that it makes you less safe.

 

[Spanky267]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

You don't know how to work a safe?

I do. I also know how to work an alarm system, which I prefer to a gun.

But my comment was not meant to be an argument in this case. What I wrote is for ME. If owning a gun makes you feel safer, I don't have a problem with that.

Tim, you do understand that most criminals know that it takes several minutes for law enforcement to respond to alarm calls, right?

They know that they can break into a home, take what they want and flee the scene long before police arrive.

I have a security system myself, but its backed up by my dogs and my gun. The security system is more for when I'm not home then for when I am home.

Like I said, each to their own. I have no problem whatsoever with you having a gun. I am not suggesting that it's dangerous for you to own one, or that it makes you less safe.

I understand your point completely. I know you have no problem with others owning a gun and statistically your chance of being the victim of a home invasion is small. But an alarm system is a placebo in that it wont protect you in the event of a home invasion. Hence my desire for multiple layers of defense. The alarm system and the sign outside my home from the security company will alert the casual burglar that maybe my house isnt worth it. The barking dogs will also discourage him. But if a criminal truly wants what is inside of my home then neither the alarm nor the dogs will be a tremendous deterent. The dogs will be more of a problem for the intruder than the alarm system would be. If said burglary occurs while I am home I want every means, legally at my disposal, to protect my family and myself. The material things in my home are irrelevant. I am more concerned about what harm might come to my wife, children and myself if someone decides to break in.

to each his own I guess. But dont take options away from me to make yourself feel better. Not saying you are in this instance, Tim. Its just a general statement in regards to the over arching gun debate.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

Horribly sad

This is the main reason I don't own guns myself. Awful.

Because you leave your 5 year old home alone?

Because my fear that some accident would take place is greater than my fear of an armed home invasion meaning to do me harm.

You don't know how to work a safe?

Timmay getting

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Obama's request to the CDC to research gun violence is backfiring

Obama issued 23 executive orders pertaining to gun control. One of which was a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

The majority of deaths that take place annually by the use of a firearm are not related to crime, but to suicide.

It points out that virtually every study which "assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns" discovered the same thing. Those using their guns for self-defense "consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual [defensive] uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)."

For people complaining about accidental deaths due to firearms..."Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010."

While everyone recognizes that there will always be crime and violence and yes, even gun violence, the fact of the matter is that gun control is not the answer, except to make sure you control your own gun and hit your target. For sure there will be more data added as the study continues, but already what they do have from the past indicates something that is completely opposite from what this administration has presented and there is no doubt that any information that comes out of the study will be thoroughly scrutinized.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

No wonder crime is so high in Detroit.

Reporter does a story on police response time in regards to a home invasion

 

[playin4beer]

I don't have a dog in this fight.. but I like to stir the pot

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/authorities_identify_two_ionia.html#incart_river_default

Road rage turns into shoot out.. both men are killed... both men had permits to carry concealed weapons.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/12/california-semi-automatic-rifle-ban_n_4089278.html

ACRAMENTO, Calif. -- SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Friday that would have imposed the nation's toughest gun ownership restrictions on Californians, saying it was too far-reaching.

The legislation would have banned future sales of most semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, part of a firearms package approved by state lawmakers in response to mass shootings in other states.

It was lawmakers' latest attempt to close loopholes that have allowed manufacturers to work around previous assault weapon bans. Gun rights groups had threatened to sue if the semi-automatic weapons ban became law.

"I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights," the Democratic governor wrote in his veto message.

He also noted that California already has some of the nation's strictest gun and ammunition laws.

The legislation was among 18 gun bills considered by the governor as he works toward a Sunday deadline to act on bills sent to his desk last month. He signed 11 firearms bills into law and vetoed seven.

Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who proposed the rifle restrictions, said in a statement that more than 1,100 Californians have been killed with guns since the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December.

"I believe aggressive action is precisely what's needed to reduce the carnage in our communities, and to counter the equally aggressive action by the gun industry," Steinberg said.

The bill sought to ban the sale of assault rifles, but Brown objected that it also would have applied to low-capacity weapons commonly used for hunting, firearms training and target shooting, and some historical and collectible firearms. Brown also didn't want thousands of legal gun owners to have to register their existing weapons as assault rifles and be blocked from selling or transferring the weapons.

"That was, without a doubt, the most egregious piece of anti-gun legislation ever brought to a governor for his signature," said Clint Montfort, an attorney with Michel and Associates, West Coast counsel for the National Rifle Association. "We appreciate that the governor has respected the rights of California gun owners."

Montfort said the NRA is examining the bills that Brown did sign to see if any merit legal challenges.

The governor signed a measure from Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which bans kits that allow people to turn regular ammunition magazines into high-capacity magazines, as well as two other pieces of legislation that restrict the ability of mentally ill people to possess firearms.

Brown approved a measure making California the first state to impose a statewide ban on lead bullets for all types of hunting. Hunting with lead bullets already is prohibited in eight counties with endangered California condors. About two dozen states also have partial bans, mostly in sensitive wildlife refuges.

But Brown rejected a bill that would have required owners whose firearms are lost or stolen to promptly notify law enforcement. The governor noted he vetoed a similar bill last year and still doubts that criminalizing the failure to report missing weapons would help law enforcement track down gun traffickers or those prohibited from owning weapons.

Nick Wilcox, whose daughter was killed by a gunman during a 2001 Nevada County rampage, said he was hopeful Brown would have approved more.

"It's a step forward. It's not as big a step forward as we would have liked," Wilcox said on behalf of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Paul Song, executive chairman of the Courage Campaign, an advocacy organization that supported the gun bills, said in a telephone interview that Brown appeared to be trying to defuse a possible campaign issue as he runs for re-election next year. The organization later released a much stronger statement accusing the governor of "cowardly behavior" and saying he "will have blood on his hands."

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said gun owners' rights groups will consider mounting recall campaigns or election-year challenges against Democratic lawmakers who voted for the gun bills. Final votes on the legislation occurred last month, just as two Colorado state lawmakers were recalled for supporting tougher gun laws in that state.

Paredes predicted lawsuits challenging bills that require safe storage of handguns, Skinner's high-capacity magazine bill, and legislation requiring that buyers of rifles and shotguns pass a safety test.

Still, he said, "We were only shot in the heart six times instead of 12 times, and I guess we should be happy with that."

 

[timschochet]

The governor signed a measure from Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which bans kits that allow people to turn regular ammunition magazines into high-capacity magazines

Question for gun owners- how accessible are these kits? Are they easy to manufacture/operate?

 

[Rayderr]

The governor signed a measure from Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which bans kits that allow people to turn regular ammunition magazines into high-capacity magazines

Question for gun owners- how accessible are these kits? Are they easy to manufacture/operate?

This guy doesn't care about high capacity clips.

 

[Cookiemonster]

The governor signed a measure from Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which bans kits that allow people to turn regular ammunition magazines into high-capacity magazines

Question for gun owners- how accessible are these kits? Are they easy to manufacture/operate?

Up until now, you could get "rebuild" kits that contain every part of a magazine. The reason it worked is because you could have grandfathered magazines that could hold 10+ and you were allowed to repair them with these parts. It was very easy for those without grandfathered >10 round mags to just assemble them into a full magazine that could hold 20 or 30 and become a felon for assembling or manufacturing a "high capacity" magazine, but it was near impossible to prove that it wasn't a "repaired," grandfathered magazine. This essentially takes away the grandfathered ones, making repair kits for >10 unnecessary. It is still extremely easy to make one, but still illegal and now you can't even possess one.

Big whoop. All it is, is one more baby step towards more regulation. Add the lead hunting ammo ban, and you can see their strategy. The courts keep knocking down the Right to Keep and Bear Arms bills, so they'll sneak around the back and go after the ammo that is not as well protected... just as all of us claiming "slippery slope" have been saying. "You can all keep your guns, we'll just make it harder and more cost-prohibitive to use and practice with them." The next trick will be banning steel ammo (which can't even be used in many older firearms for safety reasons), because it can be called "armor piercing." All copper projectiles are VERY effective, but cost much more than lead. Expect this to extend to outdoor target ranges in the coming years as well.

Many of the bills that were vetoed were some seriously prohibitive pieces of trash, and wouldn't have stood a chance in hell when taken to court. I had heard many pro-gun guys that were hoping he would sign SB374 so that it could be squashed in court and end this constant drivel about "assault weapons." Lose the battle to win the war, so to speak.

 

[timschochet]

The governor signed a measure from Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which bans kits that allow people to turn regular ammunition magazines into high-capacity magazines

Question for gun owners- how accessible are these kits? Are they easy to manufacture/operate?

Up until now, you could get "rebuild" kits that contain every part of a magazine. The reason it worked is because you could have grandfathered magazines that could hold 10+ and you were allowed to repair them with these parts. It was very easy for those without grandfathered >10 round mags to just assemble them into a full magazine that could hold 20 or 30 and become a felon for assembling or manufacturing a "high capacity" magazine, but it was near impossible to prove that it wasn't a "repaired," grandfathered magazine. This essentially takes away the grandfathered ones, making repair kits for >10 unnecessary. It is still extremely easy to make one, but still illegal and now you can't even possess one.

Big whoop. All it is, is one more baby step towards more regulation. Add the lead hunting ammo ban, and you can see their strategy. The courts keep knocking down the Right to Keep and Bear Arms bills, so they'll sneak around the back and go after the ammo that is not as well protected... just as all of us claiming "slippery slope" have been saying. "You can all keep your guns, we'll just make it harder and more cost-prohibitive to use and practice with them." The next trick will be banning steel ammo (which can't even be used in many older firearms for safety reasons), because it can be called "armor piercing." All copper projectiles are VERY effective, but cost much more than lead. Expect this to extend to outdoor target ranges in the coming years as well.

Many of the bills that were vetoed were some seriously prohibitive pieces of trash, and wouldn't have stood a chance in hell when taken to court. I had heard many pro-gun guys that were hoping he would sign SB374 so that it could be squashed in court and end this constant drivel about "assault weapons." Lose the battle to win the war, so to speak.

Thank you. Why lead ammo? And why steel ammo? What are the differences?

 

[Cookiemonster]

The governor signed a measure from Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which bans kits that allow people to turn regular ammunition magazines into high-capacity magazines

Question for gun owners- how accessible are these kits? Are they easy to manufacture/operate?

Up until now, you could get "rebuild" kits that contain every part of a magazine. The reason it worked is because you could have grandfathered magazines that could hold 10+ and you were allowed to repair them with these parts. It was very easy for those without grandfathered >10 round mags to just assemble them into a full magazine that could hold 20 or 30 and become a felon for assembling or manufacturing a "high capacity" magazine, but it was near impossible to prove that it wasn't a "repaired," grandfathered magazine. This essentially takes away the grandfathered ones, making repair kits for >10 unnecessary. It is still extremely easy to make one, but still illegal and now you can't even possess one.

Big whoop. All it is, is one more baby step towards more regulation. Add the lead hunting ammo ban, and you can see their strategy. The courts keep knocking down the Right to Keep and Bear Arms bills, so they'll sneak around the back and go after the ammo that is not as well protected... just as all of us claiming "slippery slope" have been saying. "You can all keep your guns, we'll just make it harder and more cost-prohibitive to use and practice with them." The next trick will be banning steel ammo (which can't even be used in many older firearms for safety reasons), because it can be called "armor piercing." All copper projectiles are VERY effective, but cost much more than lead. Expect this to extend to outdoor target ranges in the coming years as well.

Many of the bills that were vetoed were some seriously prohibitive pieces of trash, and wouldn't have stood a chance in hell when taken to court. I had heard many pro-gun guys that were hoping he would sign SB374 so that it could be squashed in court and end this constant drivel about "assault weapons." Lose the battle to win the war, so to speak.

Thank you. Why lead ammo? And why steel ammo? What are the differences?

I just read that I may have been mistaken about the >10 round mags being illegal now. I'll need to double check on that. I know the kits are, but the grandfathered mags, I'm not sure about yet.

The lead ammo is being cited by some (same ones screaming global warming at the top of their lungs) as a contributor to lead poisoning in the California Condors and has already been banned for hunting in counties surrounding Condor habitat. There isn't much good reason to do it in the rest of the state (and very questionable if it does any good in Condor land). Lead shot for waterfowl hunting has been banned in many places because the bottom-feeders suck it up, the birds eat the fish and lead is passed on from prey to predator, to the next predator... Understandable, if not a little tree-hugger for my tastes. For game hunting? I don't get it at all. Unless you're wearing your Most of those rounds are buried in a hillside.

Some ammo has been made of steel core, wrapped in lead. It's cheaper and close enough in weight to work. Bullets made of solid steel would ruin the lands and grooves in many firearms, and would not expand at all. Expansion is a good thing in a bullet. Some districts have begun calling steel bullets armor piercing because they don't splatter like lead does when it hits plate armor. The reality is, nearly all body armor is defeated by common hunting caliber rifles. The best option so far (in fact, it is more accurate and terminal ballistics prove just as good, if not better) is all copper. This stuff costs a pretty penny - pun intended. It is different than lead in it's ballistics as well because it is so much lighter. To make the same weight bullet, it has to be nearly twice as long making it prohibitive in some calibers to even make it, let alone practicing with lead will land impacts far from the same mark you would have for the copper. So you either have the common man practicing with lead, hunting with copper and making bad hits, leaving the game to run off and die slowly a long ways away. Sometimes days later or not at all. Or you have the rich man who can afford to practice with copper. Or the poor man who can no longer afford to do it at all. How about the ranchers who take dozens of coyotes every year to protect their livestock? Their ammo goes from $0.50-$1.00 per round to $2.50-$3.00 per round. Varmint hunters? Those guys can shoot hundreds of rounds a month not counting plinking.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

pop

 

[timschochet]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-declines-gun-regulations-challenge-135838761--finance.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home.

The court decided not to hear a challenge to a New Jersey state law that requires people who want to carry handguns to show they have a special reason before they can get a permit. The court has shown a reluctance to wade in on the issue in recent months, declining to hear cases that challenged similar regulations in New York and Maryland.

The gun owners challenging the law said that the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not limited to the right to keep a handgun at home.

By declining to hear the New Jersey case, the Supreme Court left intact a July 2013 decision by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the law.

The high court has yet to decide whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question left unanswered in its two most recent gun-related decisions.

In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, the court held that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court held that the earlier ruling applied to the states.

The case is Drake v. Jerejian, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-827

Thoughts?