When two gunmen smashed through the front glass door...

Tripp, Daddy and I both had a class III ffl c&r, we used to collect the artillery pieces and travel around to different shoots and swap meets and sell firing time. After he passed away I sold them off and turned in the license. I still shoot quite frequently, but it just wasn't as much fun without him. Yes the ammunition costs were quite high for some of the antique linked cartridges, but it was a hell of a lot of fun to burn through several pounds of lead in a minute. Of course all of the licensing is done through BATF, and LLEO, and there are quite a few flaming hurdles to jump through, but it is worth it.

 

I take it you were a Jarhead at some point in the past. Most of the Marines I've met have been top lads. I good lot, though we certainly didn't see eye to eye on a great many issues. I was in the AZ/CO-NG for almost 7 years, mostly artillery. Was an FO for SP 155mm and then later an FDC Chief for MLRS. Howitzers were far more fun to shoot (no FOs in MLRS).

As far as gun controls go... I think that there ought to be limits but that outright bans don't make any sense... for several reasons. Frankly, I think it should be harder to get guns but making limitations on specific kinds of guns should be done via different levels of license. Basically like it's done now. The incremental bans on assault rifles is a bit silly in my mind. Bayonet lugs and pistol grips (or the lack thereof) are not the issue. Keeping weapons out of the wrong hands is.

 

I've heard that there are anywhere from 20-30,000 laws concerning guns on the books already. Too bad we can't get them to enforce those already in place. I'm afraid that passing new/more gun laws will give everyone a 'false' sense of security if these and other laws concerning guns are not enforced.


BTW, the shotgun myth is a good read. . .

.

Legends And Myths Of The Home Defense Shotgun - Brief Article | Guns Magazine | Find Articles at BNET

there is more on the internet about this subject.

With that said I have a Winchester Defender 12ga shotgun loaded with bird shot in the master bedroom closet, a 9mm Glock 19 in a carry pack either near the bed or in the car, a baseball bat in the front closet and no kids.

Wildkow

 

Makes me glad I live in Australia.
I have knives and forks in a draw in the kitchen and some sharper knives in a block on the bench. I think my son has a cricket bat somewhere but if someone comes into my home I'll get my family out as best I can then ring the police and insurance company.

 

Guns are not build to kill. They are built to chamber and fire bullets. That's like saying dogs are born to serve humans. No they're not. They're born because two dogs had dog sex.

Fixed it for you.

The Supreme Court said otherwise. If the history of gun law in the United States is our guide, for the next 150 to 200 years your opinion will remain rebuffed.

Jonestown. Rwanda. Should I continue?

Many. Proving nothing.

And that concludes today's lesson in assault tactics. Thank you for that little piece of knowledge that again proves nothing.

You say angry cowards use guns, but you intentionally leave off "to commit these kind of acts". You leave it open-ended because that is your blatantly transparent opinion of gun owners. I would counter and say that making these kind of statements in the way you make them is cowardly. If you think gun owners are cowards, then say so. Don't hide it in a paragraph about rampage killings.

Epic fail (should I mention Rwanda again?). Anyone trained in using firearms for self-defense knows they are of limited value against a knife at even medium distances. It only takes an instant for someone with a knife to go from being 15 feet away from you to putting it into you. They can do so in the time it takes your brain to think about how to draw your weapon.

I agree with you here. But I didn't make this argument about guns. Others have. The reason we can own guns is because it is a Constitutional right UPHELD by the Supreme Court. You can choose not to like it, but if you want to live where the laws favor your opinions, then you do at least have options.

 

Gun Control means using two hands!!!!

 

That's a load of bollocks and you know it. Of course guns are designed to kill. You just described the mechanism by which they get the job done. It still takes a finger on the trigger (ideally just the finger tip with smooth, even pressure) to get the job done.

Kow, you don't actually need to fire a pump action shotgun. You just need to give it a pump. That particular sound will send the assailants out the door... running.

 

Thanks Tripp, that was kind of the point. The website is clearly set up to make sure everyone knows about all these horrendous crimes, but when you actually take the time to look through it all theres not a whole lot there beyond sensational headlines. I guess to turn the question around, if I was going to engage in an activity with a known risk factor (ie keeping loaded guns around my house), I would want to have some sense that I was preventing something (ie being killed in a home invasion) with a higher risk factor. And yet there is almost no data out there to support this that I can find.

I do find it ironic that while many gun owners consider themselves to be the stronger, or tougher component of our society, they are also far more prone to live a life of fear and paranoia. Meanwhile most of the poor trembling lefties just get on with their lives. I think the sad incident in Tennesse a few months back was a good illustration. A right wing nutjob went down to the local UU church with a shotgun and a handgun to mow down liberals cowering in their pews until the cops showed up and killed him. In reality he got only a couple of shots off. One man threw himself into the blast to protect his family, while a number of others tackled him and restrained him until the cops showed up and dragged him off to jail. Their being unarmed made little difference, and their being liberals didn't end up meaning they were wimps.

Apparently unlike several people in this post, I don't sit around worrying about someone invading my home. I've considered what I would do if it happened, but beyond that I thinks its a waste of time to sit around worrying about an extremely unlikely event. If someone forces their way into my home they are most likely going to be prepared and have the advantage. If their goal is to take my stuff, I'll help them load the getaway car. Thats why I have insurance. My resisting or trying to introduce a firearm in a situation in which I'm at a disadvantage greatly increases the chances of being killed myself, or causing the death of a member of my family. I am not willing to die for my stuff. In the exceptionally rare occurrence of someone coming into my home with an intention to do us harm, I would have to adapt to that situation. In that situation, like in the OPs original post, I believe their are plenty of ways to respond to this situation that do not require loaded guns stashed all around my house. In fact, I do not believe that having guns stashed all around the house would substantially alter the odds in a situation like this.

Rough though they are I think the MN statistics agree. Averaging the results for a one year period, there were 55 home invasions. 1.5 people who did not introduce a firearm were killed. The population of MN is 5,000,000. So your odds of being killed in MN during a home invasion in a given year are about 1.5:5,000,000 or 1 in 3 1/3 million if you do not introduce a firearm. Of the people who did introduce a firearm, 2 killed the invaders, 1 was killed with their own weapon, and 0.5 chased off the invaders with no deaths. So your odds of being killed in a home invasion in a given year in MN if you do introduce a firearm are roughly 1:2.5. I think I'll let them have my stuff.

Rob

 

Rob, I think we're of a like mind on this one. We attend a UU church ourselves. In that circumstance I don't see how an armed congregation would have prevented the tragedy. It ended about as well as it could have really. In fact, the more these things happen the less loss of life there will be per incident because people will respond quickly and violently. There won't be much cowering.

 

Have you no shame? We're not discussing the historical origin of firearms. We're discussing their current place in society. It's irresponsible to cling (if you will allow me to rephrase Obama) to the notion that the only reason guns are designed and assembled is to kill. To even have to explain this... something so painfully simple... Ugh.

Hunting. Number of hunting rifles and hunting revolvers designed to kill humans: 0

Competitive shooting sports. Number of clay and skeet target shotguns designed to kill humans: 0

Recreational target shooting. Number of match-grade rifles and rimfire pistols designed to kill humans: 0

Even handguns designed strictly for self-defense are not designed to kill humans. They are designed to stop and deter a life-threatening attack. Doing so may or may not result in the death of the attacker.

Now, if you want to turn our attention toward the "legitimate" use of firearms as defined by some here and look at the implications of the military manufacture of weapons, then that's another ball of wax. How many governments have used firearms to kill millions?

How often have I heard, "You can't be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty"? How weird is it to be anti-gun and pro military (any use of firearms by your government even for defense)? If you deny the individual the right to bear arms, you must also deny your government the same right... that is, if you wish to keep the moral high ground. (and by this point I'm speaking to other posters here..)

 

Thank God we don't have armed congregations. Especially when everyone starts speaking in tongues and rolling around in the aisles.

Yes, the use of a handgun for self-defense is not for every situation. Just because you carry concealed for self-defense does not mean you go firing willy-nilly into a crowd of people at church or a mall in hopes of hitting the attacker. To assume that those who carry for self defense would think otherwise is a bit presumptuous.

 

I think his point was there are a number of "pro-gun" folks who have been advocating this as a solution. If we only had more guns in our schools, we'd avoid tragedies like Columbine etc..

Rob

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Rob, take a bow mate.:first:

 

I have to agree as to the church situation, but not completely in a Columbine-type situation. Of course, I'm not saying "more people with guns" as a simplistic solution, however... a few armed and trained school officials (notice I didn't say teachers) could *possibly* have altered the outcome. We'll never know, will we?

In the end there's only so much you can do to prevent this kind of stuff. If schools have armed officials, the perpetrator(s) can simply wear body armor or use rifles. Thank God we don't have Chechen separatists pissed off at us. I'm still amazed there has not yet been a single instance of a terrorist massacre at an American shopping mall. Either the terrorist threat was oversold or our FBI/CIA got serious about their jobs and stepped up to the plate... or both.

 

Sorry James Wyatt, hunting guns and assault weapons are designed to kill, no one said designed to kill people just designed to kill. These guns and shotguns have no other purpose. Sports target shooting guns are the only guns not designed from first inception to kill a living creature.

I would never deny the need for a government to have weapons to defend the law or the people, but the job should be left to the specialists.

 

Pat, America has a culture of gov't mistrust. The founders of this country had that mistrust and that is why the constitution safeguards individual rights to bear arms. Your last paragraph makes a lot of American uncomfortable, in principle. It's part of our culture to be wary of too strong a central gov't.

 

LOL! that is true on almost all occasions, I know I'd run if I heard a shotgun being racked! But if the dumbass is drunk, it don't always hold true. I had an experience once with my pump shotgun. Two fella's were trying to break into a friend's apt below me on Halloween. I called 911, they apologized and said "It's Halloween and we have to many emergencies already, you'll have to wait your turn." LOL!

So I open our upstairs window and shouted out that I called the police! They were not impressed and continued their efforts to break in. I grabbed my shotgun and walked downstairs and just before I rounded the corner where they stood I racked a shell in as loudly as I could! Upon rounding the corner I pointed the shotgun at them, safety on, finger off the trigger and told them “Stop!†what you’re doing! I used the best command voice I could muster. I don't remember all that happened next maybe some laughter or a FU but suffice to say both were drunk and neither were a bit scared of the gun. In fact one of them advanced on me and said he was going to take the gun and do some unspeakable acts with it.

So now I'm thinking F me! I either have to pull the trigger or back off because I don’t want to shoot/kill someone over property. So I backed off and they broke in and took some items and left. The cops never did show up. Lesson? Never, never, never pull a gun or point one at someone unless you intend to kill them, period.

I will confront the burglar next time with a baseball bat. If they get the best of me, my wife, who will be hanging back, on the phone with 911 and with the shotgun or the Glock 19, will inform 911 that she is about to shoot two assailants and then unhesitatingly fire with deadly accuracy. It seems once you mention “gun†to 911 in Fresno that get's them there in about 2-3 minutes. It’s like going into the ER and saying “I can’t breathe and/or my chest hurts!†works every time.

Wildkow

 

maybe there is something wrong with a democracy which has an elected government which the voters don't trust. World's greatest democracy? Yeah right.
I'm comfortable with our government while not owning a gun, that's the way I like it.

 

So, let me get this right..

The husband shot and unarmed man on the front lawn ?
In fact, shot him twice with a shotgun.

He should be done for that..

 

That was a dumb stunt on your part, and you know it. If you go looking for trouble, you will FIND trouble!

Never, *ever* pull a stunt like that unless you have the cubes to follow through. You mentioned they were shitfaced, what if they had pounced you, taken the pump, and used it on you? Hmmmm??

Not sure about Kalifornia, but when I lived in Utah, we had a clear state constitutional right to use terminal force to defend, in priority: our life, someone elses life, and finally property. Folks there appeared quite willing to do so too

I had a CCW and - before I was in the Army, had my dad's Korean war vintage Colt .45 ACP. The Army taught me a few things about modern weapons, and I upgraded to a Beretta, then finally to a Glock 22 (.40).

I was never in a situation where I felt I had to even *think* about drawing my weapon. Matter of fact, most of the time I left it at home when I was out and about.

Of course, here in Manitoba we have dramatically increasing incidents of car jackings, violent home invasions, 13 year olds stealing cars and trying to purposely mow down innocent pedestrians, that the socialist NDP Premier Gary Doer has done SFA to mitigate.

Perhaps the biggest single factor to encourage me to move back to Utah would be to have a far lower crime rate, especially involving vehicle theft, violent home invasion, homicide, and assault, compared to Manitoba. Would I again apply for a CCW? Probably

Thing is, I had combat training. I know my limits, and have enough self confidence to know when to turn and run. Most likely, the person I encounter directly across the business end of my firearm didn't have combat training

No sense proving you're some gun-toting "hero" if you end up dead, or beat up so badly you're f***** up for the rest of your life

Please try to use a little common sense next time you're in such a situation. Even though we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, I still don't like it when somebody dies for no purpose whatsoever

On a side note, what would happen in Kalifornia if you *did* kill somebody and it was ruled a legal self-defense? Would you face a civil court action from the dead persons family, which would bankrupt you?? It's important to consider if your state has indemnification for that sort of legal homicide.