login
3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon (Page 11)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-13 11:09 AM in reply to: #4533600 |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregongearboy - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:46 AM ... I personally don't believe wait periods do anything. I know it's hard to "prove" that a cooling off period prevented a shooting, but typically what I've seen in crimes of passion or suicide the person already has the gun and doesn't go out and purposely buy the gun to do the deed. I remember the tragic case where a lady went to a gun range and rented a gun that she used to kill her son and herself. Bad people will always find way. I can't even imagine the "standard" that would be brought up for a psychological evaluation. I know on the surface it sounds good, but the reality of it would be really difficult to implement and easily faked. "have you ever had thoughts of shooting people in a mall?" um, no I haven't - Pass I'm all for gun safety training and think everyone should take it, but it shouldn't be required to own a gun. Also I'd rather somebody who plans to go shoot up a mall have as little training as possible. If he's forced by the government to take sharpshooting and tactical training he'll just kill more people. I do agree they should be locked up, but I'm just not sure how to go about mandating/enforcing that one per my previous post. A semi auto handgun can also hold a clip with more bullets. So while each individual bullet may pack the same punch, and you might well shoot them about as fast, the fact is that your semi will also need reloading a lot less. It may be more prone to jamming, but in most cases, the damage you can do, especially if you get an extended clip, is going to be more. Just a pet peeve of most gun owners. It's a magazine and not a clip. There are a lot of different types of semi auto handguns. My XDm .40 holds 16 rds +1 in the chamber, but Santa's bringing me an XDs .45 that holds 5 rds. +1 in the chamber which is no different than many revolvers. It sounds like you're really arguing more towards magazine capacity and reload capability. I believe California has gone down this road with limited capacity magazines and requiring a "tool" to change magazines, but statistically I don't think it's had any effect on murder rates. Left Brain could probably talk to that more intelligently than I. The hard part about the argument is where to draw the line and more importantly what is effective. I know there's a legal argument/debate about what the 2A allows for arms and I personally don't think anyone should be able to own a Nuclear weapon. But, I'd love to own my own F18 fighter jet with missiles and a tank. (For personal protection of course) |
| 2012-12-13 11:11 AM in reply to: #4533737 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-13 11:58 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. This is where you really are talking in circles and have nothing to stand on. A police sniper, permission granted to take the suspect out... a bullet straight to the brain... I most certainly grantee you his INTENTION was to kill the suspect. People are taught to shoot center mass... that is where the highest percentage for a shot to take someone down. Much much bigger target, vital organs to hit, high degree of bleeding out. A head shot has a much greater chance of working, but is much harder to hit under stress. It is a much riskier shot... yet it is the more effective shot. In court, I have demonstrated deadly force was necessary. I used deadly force, the person died, I have ZERO responsibility intention or not. If the subject died and I INTENDED for him to die, that is not murder... MURDER is unjustified. Every single police shooting I have ever seen dissected... everyone want to know why the officer didn't just wound him... every single police department says the same thing... deadly force was warranted...thats what we did. Guns are only used to shoot people with deadly force. If deadly force is not justified, less than lethal means are deployed. Your distinctions in your mind make absolutely not one bit of difference in the real world, or a court room. Got it... I'm tapping out. Lesson to all from Powerman... if you justified in using deadly force go for it... shoot til the gun runs dry, then re-load and shoot some more... you are justified in using deadly force after all so go ahead and use it |
| 2012-12-13 11:18 AM in reply to: #4533763 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-13 10:11 AM powerman - 2012-12-13 11:58 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. This is where you really are talking in circles and have nothing to stand on. A police sniper, permission granted to take the suspect out... a bullet straight to the brain... I most certainly grantee you his INTENTION was to kill the suspect. People are taught to shoot center mass... that is where the highest percentage for a shot to take someone down. Much much bigger target, vital organs to hit, high degree of bleeding out. A head shot has a much greater chance of working, but is much harder to hit under stress. It is a much riskier shot... yet it is the more effective shot. In court, I have demonstrated deadly force was necessary. I used deadly force, the person died, I have ZERO responsibility intention or not. If the subject died and I INTENDED for him to die, that is not murder... MURDER is unjustified. Every single police shooting I have ever seen dissected... everyone want to know why the officer didn't just wound him... every single police department says the same thing... deadly force was warranted...thats what we did. Guns are only used to shoot people with deadly force. If deadly force is not justified, less than lethal means are deployed. Your distinctions in your mind make absolutely not one bit of difference in the real world, or a court room. Got it... I'm tapping out. Lesson to all from Powerman... if you justified in using deadly force go for it... shoot til the gun runs dry, then re-load and shoot some more... you are justified in using deadly force after all so go ahead and use it Nope...not what I said... does the police sniper reload and keep shooting till there is no head? I guess it would look like the horse that has been beaten to death. |
| 2012-12-13 11:19 AM in reply to: #4533623 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. |
| 2012-12-13 11:20 AM in reply to: #4533752 |
Regular 1023 Madrid | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-13 6:07 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 9:25 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:21 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:17 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:15 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. So it comes down to matching force ? For me, yes, it's the only reason to have a gun if you're not hunting. Yep there's nothing like standing in someone elses shoes to get a different view. After yesterday I could probably be more open to owning a gun. Even less doubt that I'd be able to use it. I don't have a gun to shoot someone in my house. I have one "incase". The point is for them not to be in my house in the first place. I have had dogs my entire life... not blood thirsty attack dogs... just dogs. Medium to large, good bark, alert and don't like strangers.... no house I have ever lived in has ever been broken into. Perhaps just a statistical chance... but I firmly believe with all my heart, it is because I have dogs. The gun in the drawer does me no good if a wake up with someone over me. Does me no good if I have to fight to get to it. Does me no good if I am not home. My first advice to you would be get a dog. Most criminals do not want to mess with a barking dog. Not because they are afraid they will get bit... dog might not even do anything. But they do not want the noise or the alert... and all they have to do is go next door where there isn't one. Dogs solve 99% of the problems. The gun is for the 1%.... and simply because I believe in exercising my rights. Agree, I do have a dog. She makes enough noise but as you can see in the avatar is not going to strike fear into any intruder. Fortunately yesterday's fiasco took place when no one was at home. The huge majority of breakins here in Spain happen in empty houses. Overnight breakins or those of a violent nature are extremely rare here. One of the good things is that the criminals rarely carry weapons (so the police tell me). The flip side of that is the police take a very lassez fair attitude towards this type of crime. No one hurt ? OK carry on... |
| 2012-12-13 11:53 AM in reply to: #4533783 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:20 AM powerman - 2012-12-13 6:07 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 9:25 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:21 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:17 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:15 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. So it comes down to matching force ? For me, yes, it's the only reason to have a gun if you're not hunting. Yep there's nothing like standing in someone elses shoes to get a different view. After yesterday I could probably be more open to owning a gun. Even less doubt that I'd be able to use it. I don't have a gun to shoot someone in my house. I have one "incase". The point is for them not to be in my house in the first place. I have had dogs my entire life... not blood thirsty attack dogs... just dogs. Medium to large, good bark, alert and don't like strangers.... no house I have ever lived in has ever been broken into. Perhaps just a statistical chance... but I firmly believe with all my heart, it is because I have dogs. The gun in the drawer does me no good if a wake up with someone over me. Does me no good if I have to fight to get to it. Does me no good if I am not home. My first advice to you would be get a dog. Most criminals do not want to mess with a barking dog. Not because they are afraid they will get bit... dog might not even do anything. But they do not want the noise or the alert... and all they have to do is go next door where there isn't one. Dogs solve 99% of the problems. The gun is for the 1%.... and simply because I believe in exercising my rights. Agree, I do have a dog. She makes enough noise but as you can see in the avatar is not going to strike fear into any intruder. Fortunately yesterday's fiasco took place when no one was at home. The huge majority of breakins here in Spain happen in empty houses. Overnight breakins or those of a violent nature are extremely rare here. One of the good things is that the criminals rarely carry weapons (so the police tell me). The flip side of that is the police take a very lassez fair attitude towards this type of crime. No one hurt ? OK carry on... Maybe two then. Or a bigger one. I would definitely be mad... but as long as no on was hurt that is a good thing. In the big picture, at no time in my 45 years have I ever been in a situation where having a gun would have given me a better outcome. I simply have not needed one, and if history is an indicator, I can probably make it another 45 years. I feel relatively safe with dogs and that will never change. If I would ever have to use one, it would really suck. I'm the one that has to clean up the mess. I'm the one that has to go to all the interviews. I'm the one that took a life. I hope all it does is sit in a drawer all it's life and puts holes in paper every now and then. But it is also a reasonable thing to have. When you need one, you you can't go get one. Traveling, disturbances.. what ever. Some weird thing... it is like every other bit of insurance I have in my life... I pay a small amount and hope I never need it to cover an event that could be catastrophic. It is a $600 piece of insurance sitting in my drawer that I hope I never use... but it is there, and if I need to, I will use it. |
| 2012-12-13 11:58 AM in reply to: #4533864 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-13 9:53 AM Maybe two then. Or a bigger one. Context.. without it this is funny. |
| 2012-12-13 12:01 PM in reply to: #4533874 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-13 10:58 AM powerman - 2012-12-13 9:53 AM Maybe two then. Or a bigger one. Context.. without it this is funny. I like your style. |
| 2012-12-13 12:06 PM in reply to: #4533780 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? |
| 2012-12-13 12:10 PM in reply to: #4533900 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon ejshowers - 2012-12-13 12:06 PM tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? That's overkill. |
| 2012-12-13 12:21 PM in reply to: #4533780 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon tuwood - 2012-12-13 12:19 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. Not specifically a response to tuwood, just riffing off the topic overall - but how would having a gun have changed what happened to gr33n? If there was a gun in the house, that would have been one more thing for the criminals to take - and if it ended up being used to shoot someone, indirectly, gr33n would have contributed to that. And if he had the gun with him, they still would have been able to break in while everyone was out. I have 2 big dogs. And the one tends to be a "biter" when excited - she likes to grab an arm and hold on, which, if I were breaking in, would be pretty frightening. Of course, I routinely come home to closets and drawers opened and stuff scattered everywhere anyway....she is a bad dog! (she got a whole bag of potatoes off the shelf 4 feet above the floor and went to town yesterday) |
| 2012-12-13 12:40 PM in reply to: #4533909 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-13 12:10 PM ejshowers - 2012-12-13 12:06 PM tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? That's overkill. Sorry, not a gun owner beyond a pellet gun, just got it off a list entitled Ten Best Practices For Gun Safety, and it seems reasonable to me. |
| 2012-12-13 12:46 PM in reply to: #4533940 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gearboy - 2012-12-13 11:21 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 12:19 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. Not specifically a response to tuwood, just riffing off the topic overall - but how would having a gun have changed what happened to gr33n? If there was a gun in the house, that would have been one more thing for the criminals to take - and if it ended up being used to shoot someone, indirectly, gr33n would have contributed to that. And if he had the gun with him, they still would have been able to break in while everyone was out. I have 2 big dogs. And the one tends to be a "biter" when excited - she likes to grab an arm and hold on, which, if I were breaking in, would be pretty frightening. Of course, I routinely come home to closets and drawers opened and stuff scattered everywhere anyway....she is a bad dog! (she got a whole bag of potatoes off the shelf 4 feet above the floor and went to town yesterday) To some extent GB, I agree with you. Sitting around playing "what if" does nothing. Sitting around thinking about how a gun might have helped, or will help in the future is pointless. Seriously, if say I'm carrying, and a guy wants my wallet, and I'm with my wife.... I might just give him my wallet. That might be the thing to do for me and my wife to go home safe. It's no different that knowing martial arts... usually the best defense is not getting into a fight. Just because you know martial arts, does not mean you walk around looking for an excuse to use them. The bottom line isn't to shoot some one, the bottom line is for me and my family to be unharmed... If I can accomplish that by giving the guy my wallet... then it's a small price. But it is just as futile to sit around thinking of all the "what ifs" about how this won't work or that... it does not matter...it's an option... you have options. You might not use all of them, you might only use option "A", but you have others and those might become useful. The guy did not feel safe, now he feels safer. He may never use it. Hopefully, he may never have to and this was the only instance... but in the future he now has more options. I can't possibly see how having more options is a bad thing. |
| 2012-12-13 12:49 PM in reply to: #4533900 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon ejshowers - 2012-12-13 12:06 PM tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? I skipped over the first part of the story. The guy started beating on their door in the evening and eventually broke through the door forcing his way in. He was apparently trying to break into some rival drug dealers house to steal his drugs and had the wrong address. My buddy's son was home with his roommate and scrambling around the apartment trying to find something to defend himself with while he was calling the police. He found a bat, but as soon as the guy broke through the door with a gun he was forced to drop the bat and hang up the cellphone call prior to getting through to the police. Then the rest of the story went on from there. In hindsight had he had a gun there's no telling what the outcome would have been. He did make it out alive without one, but only because the PO'd drug dealer decided to let him live. He has some serious psychological scars from the event though. |
| 2012-12-13 12:57 PM in reply to: #4533976 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-13 12:46 PM gearboy - 2012-12-13 11:21 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 12:19 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. Not specifically a response to tuwood, just riffing off the topic overall - but how would having a gun have changed what happened to gr33n? If there was a gun in the house, that would have been one more thing for the criminals to take - and if it ended up being used to shoot someone, indirectly, gr33n would have contributed to that. And if he had the gun with him, they still would have been able to break in while everyone was out. I have 2 big dogs. And the one tends to be a "biter" when excited - she likes to grab an arm and hold on, which, if I were breaking in, would be pretty frightening. Of course, I routinely come home to closets and drawers opened and stuff scattered everywhere anyway....she is a bad dog! (she got a whole bag of potatoes off the shelf 4 feet above the floor and went to town yesterday) To some extent GB, I agree with you. Sitting around playing "what if" does nothing. Sitting around thinking about how a gun might have helped, or will help in the future is pointless. Seriously, if say I'm carrying, and a guy wants my wallet, and I'm with my wife.... I might just give him my wallet. That might be the thing to do for me and my wife to go home safe. It's no different that knowing martial arts... usually the best defense is not getting into a fight. Just because you know martial arts, does not mean you walk around looking for an excuse to use them. The bottom line isn't to shoot some one, the bottom line is for me and my family to be unharmed... If I can accomplish that by giving the guy my wallet... then it's a small price. But it is just as futile to sit around thinking of all the "what ifs" about how this won't work or that... it does not matter...it's an option... you have options. You might not use all of them, you might only use option "A", but you have others and those might become useful. The guy did not feel safe, now he feels safer. He may never use it. Hopefully, he may never have to and this was the only instance... but in the future he now has more options. I can't possibly see how having more options is a bad thing. I'm kind of on the same page with both of you as well. This specific incident of being burglarized would not and could not have been prevented by owning a gun, and as GB stated it could have resulted in a gun being stolen. I don't want to put words in gr33ns mouth, but I suspect it's more about the fact that this did happen and "what if" him and/or his wife were home when it occurred. I'm in total agreement with you powerman on the robbery situation. I'd say 9 times out of 10 if I were to be robbed I would just give the guy my wallet and do everything I could to de-escalate the situation. However, if he/she decides to escalate the situation I have options to escalate with them. My number one job is to get home safe to my family every day and protect them if they are in danger. I think that if I found myself in a situation where somebody else was in harms way I'd be more inclined to withdraw and call the police versus try to engage the bad guy. I am not a police officer and as Left Brain said earlier in this thread the last thing I want to be is a guy with a gun shooting in a volatile situation when the police show up. Now if the guy is bearing down on me, then I have no choice. also, I think dogs are one of the best home defense weapons you can have. Unfortunately, I just own a very fat and lazy cat. |
| 2012-12-13 1:12 PM in reply to: #4533981 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:49 AM I skipped over the first part of the story. The guy started beating on their door in the evening and eventually broke through the door forcing his way in. He was apparently trying to break into some rival drug dealers house to steal his drugs and had the wrong address. My buddy's son was home with his roommate and scrambling around the apartment trying to find something to defend himself with while he was calling the police. He found a bat, but as soon as the guy broke through the door with a gun he was forced to drop the bat and hang up the cellphone call prior to getting through to the police. Then the rest of the story went on from there. In hindsight had he had a gun there's no telling what the outcome would have been. He did make it out alive without one, but only because the PO'd drug dealer decided to let him live. He has some serious psychological scars from the event though. In that instance, if I had a gun... he would have been shot when he broke open the door. I had a drug dealer that lived next to me... mostly just weed. Not like inner city stuff. Quiet street. Even liked the guy... but he went down hill, and then I would get people knocking on the door in the middle of the night. It pizzed me off and I was not happy about it... but not too "worried"... they were not tweakers. But the dogs immediately went bonkers and they were not happy about it either. So generally I did not fear some sort of "incident". We have "make my day law" here in Colorado. Several drunks have been shot going into the wrong house. So ya, someone is trying to get in all pizzed off... that is not going to end well for him. Which in that instance... that is the 1% I was talking about... the chances of it actually happening to me are probably bigger than me winning power ball... but some sort of mistake and someone wants in... I'm telling the wife to get down and call the police... and I WANT the police to come and take care of it... but for the 2-5 minutes it takes for that to happen... I'm on my own... and I will protect my family. Options, they are nice to have. |
| 2012-12-13 1:21 PM in reply to: #4533468 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon tuwood - 2012-12-13 8:46 AM TriToy - 2012-12-13 8:26 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 12:54 AM TriToy - 2012-12-12 6:54 PM he stole the gun from someone he knew " armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle he stole from someone he knew, and went on a rampage that left two people dead."
to me that says we need fewer weapons out there period. Why was this semiautomatic rifle not locked up safely??? Well, you said it, so tell me how we make that happen? We have roughly 400,000,000 guns "out there".....how would you reduce that number?
I don't know we start with much longer waiting periods - 10 days is ridiculously short. We need standardization across the country, since the right to bear arms is in the constitution it should be ruled by federal law not state law IMO. And yes stricter licensing. Maybe even with psychiatric evaluation. And I do NOT feel that auto/semi auto weapons belong in the hands of untrained people. I know some states require training just to have a handgun - I think ALL states should do that. and yes you should be required to lock them in a box/cabinet. way too many accidents I personally don't believe wait periods do anything. I know it's hard to "prove" that a cooling off period prevented a shooting, but typically what I've seen in crimes of passion or suicide the person already has the gun and doesn't go out and purposely buy the gun to do the deed. I remember the tragic case where a lady went to a gun range and rented a gun that she used to kill her son and herself. Bad people will always find way. I don’t have any illusions that waiting periods would prevent the kinds of mass shootings we’ve seen. A determined criminal will probably always find ways of getting a gun. I’ve said many times that it bugs me that some people that I know in Texas and AZ own guns for no reason other than that they were easy to get and they thought it would be fun to get one. They have no idea how to use them properly, they’ve never taken any extensive training on safety or proficiency, and G-d only knows where they’re keeping them in their house. I suspect that if people like that were made to jump through a few more hoops on the way to getting a gun, they’d probably decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble. A person who wants to be a responsible gun owner, who is an avid hunter, who strongly feels that they need one for protection, is going to be more willing to go through a lengthier process to acquire one. I think we can all agree that owning a gun is a huge responsibility. But I think it’s hard for some people to see it as such when they have to go through more trouble to buy a car or get a credit card then they have to to get a gun. |
| 2012-12-13 1:35 PM in reply to: #4533900 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon ejshowers - 2012-12-13 11:06 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? That all depends on your situation. I have no kids, my wife and I both know how to handle guns so there are plenty of loaded guns easily accessible in our house. Now when we have kids that will obviously change. We will have to find a way to keep them safe until old enough to learn about guns. But the doesn't mean I can't get my gun out of the safe at night and keep it in my nightstand. |
| 2012-12-13 1:49 PM in reply to: #4534064 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Aarondb4 - 2012-12-13 1:35 PM ejshowers - 2012-12-13 11:06 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? That all depends on your situation. I have no kids, my wife and I both know how to handle guns so there are plenty of loaded guns easily accessible in our house. Now when we have kids that will obviously change. We will have to find a way to keep them safe until old enough to learn about guns. But the doesn't mean I can't get my gun out of the safe at night and keep it in my nightstand. I hope you and/or you wife remember to safely put away all those "easily accessible" guns if you happen to have someone stop by and visit that happens to have some kids in tow... ***shudder*** |
| 2012-12-13 2:22 PM in reply to: #4534101 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon ejshowers - 2012-12-13 12:49 PM Aarondb4 - 2012-12-13 1:35 PM ejshowers - 2012-12-13 11:06 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? That all depends on your situation. I have no kids, my wife and I both know how to handle guns so there are plenty of loaded guns easily accessible in our house. Now when we have kids that will obviously change. We will have to find a way to keep them safe until old enough to learn about guns. But the doesn't mean I can't get my gun out of the safe at night and keep it in my nightstand. I hope you and/or you wife remember to safely put away all those "easily accessible" guns if you happen to have someone stop by and visit that happens to have some kids in tow... ***shudder*** Yep, don't want those evil guns jumping out and hurting someone. |
| 2012-12-13 2:49 PM in reply to: #4534171 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Aarondb4 - 2012-12-13 2:22 PM ejshowers - 2012-12-13 12:49 PM Aarondb4 - 2012-12-13 1:35 PM ejshowers - 2012-12-13 11:06 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 11:19 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Sorry to hear about the burglary and glad everyone's safe. The taser route is certainly an option, but it's obviously an up close and personal device. If a 6'2" bad guy with a heavy leather coat on comes running at you, there's a high likelihood that your taser will be completely infective and you won't be able to even get in contact with his skin. Plus, he may even rip it out of your hand and use it on you. So, as the others have said, it's a force with force type of thing. Rule number one of a gun fight is to bring a gun. If the bad guy only brings a knife to the gun fight then it's advantage you. My business partner has a son whose graduating college soon. He had somebody break into his apartment and held a gun to his head for a good 10 minutes as he marched him around gathering all his valuables. He was a big time anti gun guy and didn't see why anyone needed to own a gun. Shortly after that encounter he went out and took a gun safety class, got his permit and now owns a gun. It's amazing what violent crime does to ones thoughts on gun ownership. I don't understand how having a gun would have helped the college kid - unless the gun was loaded without a trigger lock and either on his person or sitting out handy or in an unlocked drawer or something - which goes against all the "rules" of responsible gun ownership. Just last week a 4 year old here in Mpls shot his 2 year old brother in the head killing him after finding daddy's gun - that he had bought and kept handy to protect the family - in the nightstand. If my gun is locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on and my ammunition is locked away somewhere else, how can I possibly USE my gun to protect my family if someones breaks in? That all depends on your situation. I have no kids, my wife and I both know how to handle guns so there are plenty of loaded guns easily accessible in our house. Now when we have kids that will obviously change. We will have to find a way to keep them safe until old enough to learn about guns. But the doesn't mean I can't get my gun out of the safe at night and keep it in my nightstand. I hope you and/or you wife remember to safely put away all those "easily accessible" guns if you happen to have someone stop by and visit that happens to have some kids in tow... ***shudder*** Yep, don't want those evil guns jumping out and hurting someone. Or the kid taking it out of the drawer in the bedroom and shooting himself. |
| 2012-12-13 3:05 PM in reply to: #4534171 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Aarondb4 - 2012-12-13 3:22 PM ... Yep, don't want those evil guns jumping out and hurting someone. Yes, and that is the same reason that people put those protectors on the outlets when they have toddlers, so that the electricity can't come out and shock the kids. Or why they put baby gates in front of stairs - so the stairs don't pull an unsuspecting child off the edge. Because we all know that inanimate objects are the problem, not the curiousity and impulsivity of children. |
| 2012-12-13 3:15 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Its amazing that over the ages we survived childhood w/o all the child safety products that are around today. |
| 2012-12-13 3:24 PM in reply to: #4534299 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon NXS - 2012-12-13 4:15 PM Its amazing that over the ages we survived childhood w/o all the child safety products that are around today.
so locking a gun away is just a child safety product? |
| 2012-12-13 4:28 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Never said that. Do you tell your patients to lock up their prescription meds? More people die everyday in the U.S. from presciption meds than from guns. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK