# A victory in home defense!



## Fretless (Oct 3, 2014)

Let me open this up by introducing myself I am a dispatcher for the Harris County Sheriff's Office in Harris county Texas. I work from 10pm-6am, and sometimes I get to hear the worst of the worst happen in situations such as home invasions and aggravated robberies/assaults, but tonight I got to hear quite the opposite. I am going to refrain from names, places, and specific details (so the story will likely jump straight to the end saddly), as per policy I am not allowed to disclose that kind of information.

Early this morning, a home invasion occurred in our jurisdiction, and I was on our central dispatch station (kind of a middle man between the actual dispatchers, our call takers, other agencies, and our own units), it is my job as a central dispatcher to communicate with the caller, and to get information that would not only aid our deputies, but also allow them to keep everyone at the location as safe as possible. So when I got the phone, all I knew was that someone was in the callers house. I asked him what happened, and he said two armed men broke into the house and he believed he had shot one.

I asked him what weapon he was armed with, and he said an AK-47. I asked him to be prepared to store the weapon when our deputies got near (he lived pretty far away from where most of our units were at the time), and he complied. 

The deputies arrived on location to find a suspect that was armed heavily, and was also wearing body armor, now normally this would escalate into a extreme situation quickly, but the catch is that the homeowner had in fact shot the suspect. The second suspect had gotten away, and as far as I know was uninjured.

There was quite a bit of gunfire as we received other calls reporting gunshots in excess of 20 rounds fired from other residents near the area. Much to my satisfaction, no one other than the suspect was injured, and the callers family was safe. It was a crazy situation, but it all turned out for the best for the home owner and their family as they are all safe now.

I just felt that I should share that story, as it made my day, and I figured it is a good story to tell as the bad guys were the ones defeated, and no innocent people were hurt.


TL;DR : Home owner shot a heavily armed robber, and no one innocent was hurt.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 3, 2014)

Holy crap, the guy was wearing BODY ARMOR!? Robbers in Texas don't screw around! 

I am certainly glad that no one aside from one of the robbers was hurt, though.


----------



## canuck brian (Oct 3, 2014)

Body armor vs those big assed 7.62 rounds = holes in robber.


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

If only this was how most of these stories went (usually they don't involve actual robbers at all).


----------



## Underworld (Oct 3, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Holy crap, the guy was wearing BODY ARMOR!? Robbers in Texas don't screw around!




I am SO HAPPY right now to live in Canada


----------



## TedEH (Oct 3, 2014)

Fretless said:


> normally this would escalate into a extreme situation
> ...
> gunshots in excess of 20 rounds fired



What crazy world do you live in where a shootout is not an extreme situation?

Edit:


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

TedEH said:


> What crazy world do you live in where a shootout is not an extreme situation?



America.


----------



## pink freud (Oct 3, 2014)

asher said:


> America.



Sir, I believe you mean 'Mericuh.


----------



## Daf57 (Oct 3, 2014)

Good for the home owner!! 

My only concern would be the choice of a 7.62 weapon as home defense. That round would clear sheet rock and travel great distances unimpeded looking for another target. But that's another debate and moot issue in this case. So again ... good for the home owner and glad no one other than the bad guys were hurt.


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 3, 2014)

Body armor in a home invasion.....that dude pissed someone off.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 3, 2014)

Always love a happy ending.


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 3, 2014)

pink freud said:


> Sir, I believe you mean 'Mericuh.



More specifically...
Texas.



Glad to hear that no one was killed and I hope that the would be robber will think twice before pulling that crap again.


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> More specifically...
> 
> Texas.



Yes, but it applies to the whole country. I'm tempted to go link the Onion again


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 3, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> More specifically...
> Texas.
> 
> 
> ...



That dude is looking at a LOT of time.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 3, 2014)

canuck brian said:


> Body armor vs those big assed 7.62 rounds = holes in robber.



Well most body armor at least. Typical civilian and police body armor is Type II or sometimes IIIa, which stops most small centerfire pistol rounds and shot. It actually has a lot to do with the shape of the projectile and energy being focused into a point. Typical pistol centerfire are rounded or flat nosed projectiles which deform on impact. Type II can actually be penetrated by knives due to that reason. Type III and IV are ceramic or steel plate and can stop center rifle rounds.


----------



## MikeH (Oct 3, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Holy crap, the guy was wearing BODY ARMOR!? Robbers in Texas don't screw around!



It's probably because they're in Texas, which has a metric shit ton of gun owners, and you're allowed to shoot and kill someone breaking into your house, if there's probable cause.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 3, 2014)

Daf57 said:


> Good for the home owner!!
> 
> My only concern would be the choice of a 7.62 weapon as home defense. That round would clear sheet rock and travel great distances unimpeded looking for another target. But that's another debate and moot issue in this case. So again ... good for the home owner and glad no one other than the bad guys were hurt.




Thankfully the area where he lives isn't too densely populated. The next home was quite a bit away.



And on a second note, the suspect who was shot did not survive. Here's a news article that goes into more detail for anyone interested. http://khou.mlnwap.com/article.html#!/52370/3d972988a99fadef6b870ac9dac037b9


----------



## SD83 (Oct 3, 2014)

He had it coming. Could have ended very differently though, the second subject might have wounded or killed the homeowner, stray bullets might have hurt the family... if the homeowner had had no gun, would any shots have been fired? 



Underworld said:


> I am SO HAPPY right now to live in Canada



Same here, just replace Canada with Germany  It's interesting to see how different our cultures are in some aspects. Here, what we learn is that if someone threatens you with a gun, you surrender and leave persecution, justice etc. to the police & judges. If there are robbers in your house, hide, get away unseen or surrender. To me, that seems by far the more reasonable alternative. Then again, no one outside the military (legally) owns a AK47 in 200 miles radius I guess, and the entire German police fired a total of 42 bullets at people in the last year... after reading this thread, I feel like I'll feel more safe naked in the darkest corner of Berlin than with all the gun in the world in Houston, Texas. No offense intended, It's just weird (and fascinating) to see these differences in culture. [/rant]


----------



## JD27 (Oct 3, 2014)

I'm just glad I still have the right to defend myself. Surrender and evasion are not always an option. I would love the police to solve all our problems, but they can't and won't. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, whether attacked by someone with a gun, knife, bat, or fist.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 3, 2014)

Fretless said:


> Thankfully the area where he lives isn't too densely populated. The next home was quite a bit away.
> 
> 
> 
> And on a second note, the suspect who was shot did not survive. Here's a news article that goes into more detail for anyone interested. http://khou.mlnwap.com/article.html#!/52370/3d972988a99fadef6b870ac9dac037b9



Non-repeat offenders are the best kind of offenders.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 3, 2014)

SD83 said:


> He had it coming. Could have ended very differently though, the second subject might have wounded or killed the homeowner, stray bullets might have hurt the family... if the homeowner had had no gun, would any shots have been fired?
> 
> 
> 
> Same here, just replace Canada with Germany  It's interesting to see how different our cultures are in some aspects. Here, what we learn is that if someone threatens you with a gun, you surrender and leave persecution, justice etc. to the police & judges. If there are robbers in your house, hide, get away unseen or surrender. To me, that seems by far the more reasonable alternative. Then again, no one outside the military (legally) owns a AK47 in 200 miles radius I guess, and the entire German police fired a total of 42 bullets at people in the last year... after reading this thread, I feel like I'll feel more safe naked in the darkest corner of Berlin than with all the gun in the world in Houston, Texas. No offense intended, It's just weird (and fascinating) to see these differences in culture. [/rant]



Sadly surrendering here without conflict does not work as often as it does elsewhere. As a gun owner myself I am grateful to be able to defend myself with force, but that does not work in every part of the world, sometimes it is best to surrender without a fight in order to protect everyone.

Also chances are yes, even if he did not shoot, there would have been shots fired. People can get very violent here for no good reason.


*edit*



TedEH said:


> What crazy world do you live in where a shootout is not an extreme situation?
> 
> Edit:



Well I meant normally it would become a shootout with the police, which would be even more crazy.

We had deputies backing up other deputies with long rifles, k-9 out, and everything. Imagine if that turned into a firefight.


----------



## SD83 (Oct 3, 2014)

JD27 said:


> I'm just glad I still have the right to defend myself. Surrender and evasion are not always an option. I would love the police to solve all our problems, but they can't and won't. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, whether attacked by someone with a gun, knife, bat, or fist.



You technically have that right here as well, even if you kill someone, if it can be proven you did it in self defense, you won't be charged. It's not like you can't legally own a handgun (though there is a bunch of bureaucracy involved and it's almost impossible to get a permit to carry it outside of your property). 
What I don't understand is how desperate/high/stupid those criminals are. The chances of a German criminal to get wounded or killed by anything other than another criminal are almost 0. If you break into a house in the USA (or some states, I'm not exactly sure), you can get shot at any second. Why do they risk that? The longer I think about it, the more I understand your point, somehow. Honestly, until this very moment I never thought about it that way...


----------



## Fretless (Oct 3, 2014)

SD83 said:


> What I don't understand is how desperate/high/stupid those criminals are.
> ...Why do they risk that? The longer I think about it, the more I understand your point, somehow. Honestly, until this very moment I never thought about it that way...



Trust me, I wonder this every single night at work when someone reports a crime. It's ridiculously risky, not to mention flat out stupid to break into a home here in Texas (or most places), so many people own guns, why would anyone want to risk their life for potentially nothing?

Sometimes criminals will break into a drug house like this, but there was absolutely nothing to suggest that this was the case in this home invasion. I've been on the phone before with victims of home invasion, not everyone I have spoken to is still alive either. It's a harsh world, and I have learned there are times and places where it is good to be armed, and vise versa. 

If we could rid all of society from dangerous guns and stuff like that, trust me I'd be cooperative, but the sad truth in any gun violence story is that they would have found some other way to be dangerous and deadly. Imagine if someone decided that they were not going to use a gun, but instead chemicals to kill people, as it is not hard to make a deadly gas using bleach and ammonia, so what if they did that and started flooding houses with the gas before going inside to rob the place. I would much rather take my chances with home defense and guns.


----------



## redstone (Oct 3, 2014)

MikeH said:


> It's probably because they're in Texas, which has a metric shit ton of gun owners, and you're allowed to shoot and kill someone breaking into your house, if there's probable cause.









In France, robbers don't have guns, and you're still allowed to chainsaw them in self defense.  (european convention article 2.2)


----------



## redstone (Oct 3, 2014)

Fretless said:


> If we could rid all of society from dangerous guns and stuff like that, trust me I'd be cooperative, but the sad truth in any gun violence story is that they would have found some other way to be dangerous and deadly. Imagine if someone decided that they were not going to use a gun, but instead chemicals to kill people, as it is not hard to make a deadly gas using bleach and ammonia, so what if they did that and started flooding houses with the gas before going inside to rob the place. I would much rather take my chances with home defense and guns.



In practice it doesn't work that way. Most low-level delinquents use weapons that are easy to find. They don't go buy bullets and dangerous chemicals on black markets, only the big gangs, mafia, political activists etc do that. When selling ammo is prohibited, the sellers chose carefully their clients.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 3, 2014)

redstone said:


> In practice it doesn't work that way. Most low-level delinquents use weapons that are easy to find. They don't go buy bullets and dangerous chemicals on black markets, only the big gangs, mafia, political activists etc do that. When selling ammo is prohibited, the sellers chose carefully their clients.



The sad thing is we do have criminals here that resort to chemicals when they can't get guns. People were making acid bombs here and rigging mailboxes and stuff. Thankfully they caught those guys. Those chemicals were very easy to obtain too.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 3, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Here, what we learn is that if someone threatens you with a gun, you surrender and leave persecution, justice etc. to the police & judges. If there are robbers in your house, hide, get away unseen or surrender. To me, that seems by far the more reasonable alternative. Then again, no one outside the military (legally) owns a AK47 in 200 miles radius I guess, and the entire German police fired a total of 42 bullets at people in the last year... after reading this thread, I feel like I'll feel more safe naked in the darkest corner of Berlin than with all the gun in the world in Houston, Texas. No offense intended, It's just weird (and fascinating) to see these differences in culture. [/rant]



The problem is if someone is going to break into your home they are not likely the civilized, rational, peaceful type that you'd invite over for diner. They are without morals possibly psychotic, deranged, homicidal... You don't know what harm they intend to bring to you. Responding with something to the effect of sir, I kindly beg of you please do us no harm. I promise I'll be good and not resist you. Is liable to get a sinister laugh, you tied up, and your girlfriend/ wife raped, and if you are real lucky you won't be killed afterwards. It will not always be that bad but things escalate quickly in the heat of the situation.

It is best to respond with caution and being prepared to deliver overwhelming force. Retreating to a room is sound, but be ready to respond when the door is breached.

In the story, the wife and kids where in the kitchen so retreat may not have been an option, making use of force the only sound response. Kudos to the son for responding.

If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, bat, or some other weapon. 

Remember when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

Because every armed robber is also a deranged serial rapist...

I'm not saying there aren't fvcking crazy people at all. But there are plenty of somewhat rational ways to find yourself breaking into a house after a string of bad luck and bad decisions...


----------



## tacotiklah (Oct 3, 2014)

Damn, didn't see that the guy died of his injuries. I can't say he didn't have it coming, but that's still someone's child. I feel bad for the guy's family.

That said, I don't think I'd do it any differently. If someone breaks into my house and tries to strongarm my family, they'd better be paid up on their life insurance. No one twisted their arm into trying to steal, so their bad decisions brought it upon themselves.

I'll reiterate though, I'm glad that the victims are okay and respect to the son for protecting his family. I wouldn't be surprised if he needed therapy though, because taking a life (however justified) can destroy a person mentally.


----------



## SD83 (Oct 4, 2014)

7stg said:


> The problem is if someone is going to break into your home they are not likely the civilized, rational, peaceful type that you'd invite over for diner. They are without morals possibly psychotic, deranged, homicidal... You don't know what harm they intend to bring to you. Responding with something to the effect of sir, I kindly beg of you please do us no harm. I promise I'll be good and not resist you. Is liable to get a sinister laugh, you tied up, and your girlfriend/ wife raped, and if you are real lucky you won't be killed afterwards. It will not always be that bad but things escalate quickly in the heat of the situation.



As I said, I just realised that those people who break into houses in, lets say, Texas necessarily are on a totaly different level than those where I live. If I was trying to rob someone and knew he will shoot me if he has the chance to, I'll probably be ready to shoot at anything that moves the moment I see it. That is a perspective that I had never thought of before, and I kind of understand the point of having access to guns and the right to use them a bit better. If I break into a house in my neighbourhood, all I risk is some time in prison. I know that no one will shoot at me, even i they own a gun, unless I act like a total lunatic. Thus, most robbers are just in for the money (sadly, you have a 80% chance to get away unless you're caught in the act), the risk of getting caught if rape or other forms of violence are involved are way higher. And no, we don't have insanely high crime rates just because the average robber doesn't risk death. But, as I said, with criminals like what fretless described, I begin to understand that there is a bit more to the picture than I had seen before


----------



## acrcmb (Oct 4, 2014)

Glad that guys family is okay but it's kind of messed up it's a society where everyone needs guns to be safe in the first place, somethings seriously gone wrong when people are keeping ak47's in their house and having to actually use them, I get that criminals are armed but it sucks the resolution is to arm everyone and hope the good guy shoots first that being said I can't suggest an alternative it's way past the tipping point of being able to control firearms there's so many in ciruclation in America that even if they were made illegal today the underground supply would be huge, Just curious do you ever find yourself thinking about the constant fear your society lives in and think what went wrong? just as an outsider it's crazy seeing what's the norm is I couldn't live in a place like that just doesn't sound like freedom to me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 4, 2014)

I think stories like this paint a caricature of American home defense and gun culture. We're not all holed up in our McMansions gripping assault rifles just waiting for a scary minority to shoot. 

Only 38%-42% of households in the US have guns of any kind, as there has actually been a four decade decline in ownership (which has only recently started to trend up again). We still have a lot of guns because many of those ~40% are also collectors, hobbyists, and enthusiasts who own more than one. Not to mention the illegal guns that float around. 

About a third of that 38%-42% are AKs or ARs or similar, though most guns like that are going to multiple gun hobbyist and enthusiasts, which skews the numbers a little bit.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 4, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think stories like this paint a caricature of American home defense and gun culture. We're not all holed up in our McMansions gripping assault rifles just waiting for a scary minority to shoot.
> 
> Only 38%-42% of households in the US have guns of any kind, as there has actually been a four decade decline in ownership (which has only recently started to trend up again). We still have a lot of guns because many of those ~40% are also collectors, hobbyists, and enthusiasts who own more than one. Not to mention the illegal guns that float around.
> 
> About a third of that 38%-42% are AKs or ARs or similar, though most guns like that are going to multiple gun hobbyist and enthusiasts, which skews the numbers a little bit.



Very true! I grew up in Hawaii, and I had never seen guns other than the ones that my dad owned, and that was because he used to hunt. It's a very rare thing to own a gun in some areas, and it is more popular in others.

One thing that some people don't even know that is Texas is not even an open carry state like many other pro gun states, yet always seems to be painted as the one you would figure would be open carry.

Also my intention with posting this was not to freak anyone out! Houston is not as dangerous as it sounds, this is only one case involving a few people, and there are millions of people here in Houston. Chances are you will never experience a bad crime living here 



acrcmb said:


> Glad that guys family is okay but it's kind of messed up it's a society where everyone needs guns to be safe in the first place, somethings seriously gone wrong when people are keeping ak47's in their house and having to actually use them, I get that criminals are armed but it sucks the resolution is to arm everyone and hope the good guy shoots first that being said I can't suggest an alternative it's way past the tipping point of being able to control firearms there's so many in ciruclation in America that even if they were made illegal today the underground supply would be huge, Just curious do you ever find yourself thinking about the constant fear your society lives in and think what went wrong? just as an outsider it's crazy seeing what's the norm is I couldn't live in a place like that just doesn't sound like freedom to me.



Not everyone here needs guns, nor has guns. As Max said it's not even the greater majority of households that have guns. At my house we have several, and that does include high powered rifles. Are they for illegal activities? Nope. Are they for hunting? Nope. Are the for home defense? Nope. They are for going to a gun range and doing a fun activity called target practice . I honestly don't know any people who live in fear over criminals, and to be honest saying that our society lives in fear is also just not true. That is just the result of media dramatization. Chances are you will never be the victim of a serious crime such as a home invasion here, I'd never even met anyone in the first 21 years of my life before I started this job that had been the victim of a home invasion, and I only know them now because I talk to them at work on the rare occasion that one happens.

As for the freedom thing. I feel pretty darn free.


----------



## Grief (Oct 4, 2014)

Fretless said:


> As for the freedom thing. I feel pretty darn free.



I'm a new resident here, but I am fairly au fe with the cultural context of gun ownership in the USA. I really hope one day soon to make it down to both Texas and Florida as they seem like cool places in lots of ways.

There is one thing that i'd really like to put out there though, and I appreciate you didn't raise it first in this discussion. The concept of 'freedom' is often referenced in the US, but it seems to ignore the fact that 'freedom', whatever that may mean, exists in all sorts of places. I've traveled around most of western Europe, parts of Asia and the Middle East and felt the same or greater sense of freedom. It just seems in America 'freedom' is something that is vocalised as though it is unique or special when it is not the case.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 4, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> No one twisted their arm into trying to steal, so their bad decisions brought it upon themselves.



I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. As far as I understand, 99.99% of people make the decisions they make because they think it's their best option at the time- even if that best option is a home invasion that put themselves and their victims at personal risk. They don't do these things because they're EVIL and CRAZY- they're motivated by something, a situation, an external force, a lack of other options- something.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 4, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. As far as I understand, 99.99% of people make the decisions they make because they think it's their best option at the time- even if that best option is a home invasion that put themselves and their victims at personal risk. They don't do these things because they're EVIL and CRAZY- they're motivated by something, a situation, an external force, a lack of other options- something.



If they have the cash for body armor (even if obtained second hand) they don't _have to_ be robbing houses. When you're starting to invest in gear to commit crimes, opposed to putting the resources and energy into legitimate areas of your life, you've made the choice that crime is going to be what you do. 

Don't get me wrong, I have a pretty good grasp of what breeds crime in many parts of this country and have no doubts that the school system, parents (or lack thereof), and job climate could have contributed to this guy becoming a criminal. I'm just not letting him off the hook because of it. Plenty of poor, uneducated, held down folks don't become criminals.



Grief said:


> I'm a new resident here, but I am fairly au fe with the cultural context of gun ownership in the USA. I really hope one day soon to make it down to both Texas and Florida as they seem like cool places in lots of ways.
> 
> There is one thing that i'd really like to put out there though, and I appreciate you didn't raise it first in this discussion. The concept of 'freedom' is often referenced in the US, but it seems to ignore the fact that 'freedom', whatever that may mean, exists in all sorts of places. I've traveled around most of western Europe, parts of Asia and the Middle East and felt the same or greater sense of freedom. It just seems in America 'freedom' is something that is vocalised as though it is unique or special when it is not the case.



Don't be afraid of Texas or Florida because of what you hear on the news. Neither of those states are even in the top 15 when it comes to gun crime per capita, and even crime wise as a whole Texas is pretty much in the middle with Florida being on the tail end of a couple top 10 and top 20 lists. 

I lived most of my adult life in Florida, Miami and Ft. Lauderdale in fact, and never worried for my safety. 

As for the Freedom thing, that's just our culture. One of the first things we learn about in school is the Revolutionary War, and even less than 240 years later we're still darn proud of it. We're, as a whole, not ignorant to the fact that most of the first world shares our same level of freedom, we just like talking about it a bit more.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 4, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> When you're starting to invest in gear to commit crimes, opposed to putting the resources and energy into legitimate areas of your life, you've made the choice that crime is going to be what you do.



I just mean that despite that decision, it probably wasn't decided based on "I am evil- therefore crime", which seems to be the argument people make to devalue the life of someone who made bad decisions. The fact that someone died at all is sad, regardless of the circumstance. I just can't get behind the idea that as soon as someone commits a crime, their death should be celebrated, especially when we have none of the context involved.

Be happy that the potential victims of a home invader are safe. But don't be happy that someone's life was lost to come to that end.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 4, 2014)

Grief said:


> There is one thing that i'd really like to put out there though, and I appreciate you didn't raise it first in this discussion. The concept of 'freedom' is often referenced in the US, but it seems to ignore the fact that 'freedom', whatever that may mean, exists in all sorts of places. I've traveled around most of western Europe, parts of Asia and the Middle East and felt the same or greater sense of freedom. It just seems in America 'freedom' is something that is vocalised as though it is unique or special when it is not the case.


I know that the word freedom is used frequently in America, but at this point in history, just how free are we in America. As Edward Snowden revealed the government is spying on everything we do. The police in many areas have become militarized employing both military tactics and equipment. There are cities were police set up check points, conduct random searches of pedestrians, perform "home safety checks" to search peoples homes. Bringing police into schools has resulted in students being assaulted and arrested for petty issues. Laws are being passed such as the NDAA and patriot act that are eroding our freedoms, liberties, and rights. One provision is indefinite detention without a trial. In parts of the country people have faced criminal charges for collecting rain water on their own property. Growing a home garden has resulted in fines and possible imprisonment in parts of the country. Kids have had their lemonade stand shut down for lacking government authorization. Homeland security has asked Americans to spy on each other with their see something say something campaigns. We lead the world in prison incarceration rates. There are many examples and certain jurisdictions are worse than others.


----------



## tmo (Oct 4, 2014)

I can't say that the use of excessive force is a victory, it's pretty sad indeed. Why is that people most often "shoot to kill"? Can't they shoot the legs or something? Done, the criminal can't run to escape, is floored. Ok, still has a gun in his hands but is more likely to be talked down.. or can be shot in the hands. Done, no more violent crimes for him...

Like Professor-X (Charles Xavier... X-Men...?) says, "just because someone takes a bad step in life, doesn't mean can't be saved.". I like this way of thoughts...


----------



## Fretless (Oct 4, 2014)

tmo said:


> I can't say that the use of excessive force is a victory, it's pretty sad indeed. Why is that people most often "shoot to kill"? Can't they shoot the legs or something? Done, the criminal can't run to escape, is floored. Ok, still has a gun in his hands but is more likely to be talked down.. or can be shot in the hands. Done, no more violent crimes for him...
> 
> Like Professor-X (Charles Xavier... X-Men...?) says, "just because someone takes a bad step in life, doesn't mean can't be saved.". I like this way of thoughts...



There is one reason why we never advise to shoot anything other than center mass. You will more than likely miss if you are not trained to handle stress and adrenaline of a shooting scenario. With shooting center mass you have several inches of room for your shots to deviate due to you hands shaking. Shooting a leg is not easy when you're in crisis mode. 

Also we do not advise the whole shoot to kill motto that you think. We advise shooting to stop. If you're an ace shot combat vet who can handle that stress, go for a leg shot by all means. But remember if you miss and hit someone innocent, you have just committed murder.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 4, 2014)

Fretless said:


> There is one reason why we never advise to shoot anything other than center mass. You will more than likely miss if you are not trained to handle stress and adrenaline of a shooting scenario. With shooting center mass you have several inches of room for your shots to deviate due to you hands shaking. Shooting a leg is not easy when you're in crisis mode.
> 
> Also we do not advise the whole shoot to kill motto that you think. We advise shooting to stop. If you're an ace shot combat vet who can handle that stress, go for a leg shot by all means. But remember if you miss and hit someone innocent, you have just committed murder.



Shoot to stop the threat, not wound or kill. People sometimes don't realize though, the human body is able to withstand quite a beating before stopping. It isn't like movies and video games. I can point to a ton of articles with police involved shootings where a suspect has received multiple shots (some that eventually would be fatal) and keeps attacking. I have also seen several cases in recent years of people who were convicted for continuing to attack once the threat had been neutralized. Really anyone who is considering using a firearm for defensive purpose whether at home or concealed needs to have an understanding of the laws and the scenarios that may be encountered. Most states require this when you get your CCW permit.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 4, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I just mean that despite that decision, it probably wasn't decided based on "I am evil- therefore crime", which seems to be the argument people make to devalue the life of someone who made bad decisions. The fact that someone died at all is sad, regardless of the circumstance. I just can't get behind the idea that as soon as someone commits a crime, their death should be celebrated, especially when we have none of the context involved.
> 
> Be happy that the potential victims of a home invader are safe. But don't be happy that someone's life was lost to come to that end.



I agree, the loss of life is a shame, and I am certainly not celebrating the loss of the perpetrators life. 

As for "evil" it really depends. If the thought process is: "I don't have nice things. I want nice things. I want to forcibly take that guy's nice things. I am willing to break the law and/or injure that guy as long as I take his nice things. I rather do that than work for my own nice things." 

I don't know, there is some "evil" in there to me. Deciding that material things trump the life of another is pretty darn evil in my book. Not fairy-tale evil, but there's something in there. 



tmo said:


> I can't say that the use of excessive force is a victory, it's pretty sad indeed. Why is that people most often "shoot to kill"? Can't they shoot the legs or something? Done, the criminal can't run to escape, is floored. Ok, still has a gun in his hands but is more likely to be talked down.. or can be shot in the hands. Done, no more violent crimes for him...
> 
> Like Professor-X (Charles Xavier... X-Men...?) says, "just because someone takes a bad step in life, doesn't mean can't be saved.". I like this way of thoughts...



You don't know much about what guns do to the human body. A shot to the extremities can be just as lethal, and often is, as a shot to the center mass. 

I'm not just talking about large caliber rounds fired out of big guns. Small bullets can and are just as deadly. 

Also, as already stated, life isn't a video game. Shooting someone doesn't "take away their hit points", there is often still plenty of fight, if not more, in someone who has been shot.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 4, 2014)

tmo said:


> Why is that people most often "shoot to kill"? Can't they shoot the legs or something?



In addition to what Max said, if you injure someone (or they are injured while on your property in certain situations), they can not only press criminal charges against you (though they won't hold up if you can prove that it was done in self defense (note that the burden of proof shifts to you)), but they can also sue you for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars worth of damages in a civil suit. Even though they were injured while committing a crime against you. And even if you "win", you're still out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending the suit.

The US is just too lawsuit happy.


----------



## Grief (Oct 4, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> If they have the cash for body armor (even if obtained second hand) they don't _have to_ be robbing houses. When you're starting to invest in gear to commit crimes, opposed to putting the resources and energy into legitimate areas of your life, you've made the choice that crime is going to be what you do.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have a pretty good grasp of what breeds crime in many parts of this country and have no doubts that the school system, parents (or lack thereof), and job climate could have contributed to this guy becoming a criminal. I'm just not letting him off the hook because of it. Plenty of poor, uneducated, held down folks don't become criminals.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply and it's a very balance and refreshing one. I really do look forward to visiting those areas sometime. Both states appeal for all sorts of reasons and of course i'm mindful of trying to objectively evaluate what's presented in the media and take it with a pinch of salt.

One thing I have noticed in the US is that criminals are presented in the media as being irredeemable - that is to say that perpetrators are described as 'evil' or as i think you did in the opening post 'bad guys.' It might seem a simplistic labeling approach to outsiders, but would you agree this dehumanizing approach facilitates the killing of those who commit crimes?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 4, 2014)

Grief said:


> Thanks for the reply and it's a very balance and refreshing one. I really do look forward to visiting those areas sometime. Both states appeal for all sorts of reasons and of course i'm mindful of trying to objectively evaluate what's presented in the media and take it with a pinch of salt.
> 
> One thing I have noticed in the US is that criminals are presented in the media as being irredeemable - that is to say that perpetrators are described as 'evil' or as i think you did in the opening post 'bad guys.' It might seem a simplistic labeling approach to outsiders, but would you agree this dehumanizing approach facilitates the killing of those who commit crimes?



I think the US has a very different view of criminals compared to most of the first world. While many seek to reform, the US usually seeks to punish. 

That's something that has gone back and forth over the years here and there are many who want to see that return.


----------



## darren (Oct 4, 2014)

If someone goes into a house heavily armed and wearing body armour, i somehow doubt that robbery was their motive.


----------



## texshred777 (Oct 4, 2014)

One Texas dispatcher to another

The closest thing to a live fire situation while I was talking to someone was a home owner who found a burglar going through his shit. He has the burglar at gunpoint while I'm talking to him.

Have you ever had the "can I shoot him?" conversation? That's fun.

I'm glad I don't dispatch for a county as highly populated as Harris County.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 4, 2014)

Grief said:


> of course i'm mindful of trying to objectively evaluate what's presented in the media and take it with a pinch of salt.



Absolutely right - the media channels are businesses that exists to sell advertising slots, so they're just businesses trying to get as many viewers as possible so they can charge more for that time slot.





darren said:


> If someone goes into a house heavily armed and wearing body armour, i somehow doubt that robbery was their motive.



I would agree that this doesn't sound like a typical robbery. I won't be surprised if this turns out to be gang on gang violence (which accounts for most of the US violence statistics).


----------



## acrcmb (Oct 4, 2014)

Freedom and fear thing was not just about the guns exclusively was talking about things like terrorism aswell, I get that you use guns for fun but my point is it seems guns are so wide spread theres not the respect for them as deadly weapons they perhaps countries with stricter gun control have, you even have family attractions where you go with kids to shoot guns, a gun just allows for so much damage to be caused when in the wrong hands and I don't think the fun you get from there is a good price for the risk.

Here if someone commits a crime like breaking into a house or has some sort of mental episode %99 of the time they're not going have access to guns and even the ones that do aren't going around with Ak's, yeah people still commit crimes but they don't have the killing power people in America have access to they're going to have use a knife or something up close they can't just pick me off from a distance, and how many situations like disputes between neighbours or drunk friends result in someone being killed because a person thats pissed off at someone else has the power to instantly kill them readily available.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 5, 2014)

acrcmb said:


> Freedom and fear thing was not just about the guns exclusively was talking about things like terrorism aswell, I get that you use guns for fun but my point is it seems guns are so wide spread theres not the respect for them as deadly weapons they perhaps countries with stricter gun control have, you even have family attractions where you go with kids to shoot guns, a gun just allows for so much damage to be caused when in the wrong hands and I don't think the fun you get from there is a good price for the risk.
> 
> Here if someone commits a crime like breaking into a house or has some sort of mental episode %99 of the time they're not going have access to guns and even the ones that do aren't going around with Ak's, yeah people still commit crimes but they don't have the killing power people in America have access to they're going to have use a knife or something up close they can't just pick me off from a distance, and how many situations like disputes between neighbours or drunk friends result in someone being killed because a person thats pissed off at someone else has the power to instantly kill them readily available.



Cars are more deadly than guns here in America, yet most people have them, and the control over them is not as heavily regulated as guns. Should we ban or fear cars? Nope. Everything you said in that first paragraph can be projected onto so many things in the world.

As for the second one knife violence can be just as extreme. The one we had here last year was just too intense when something like 22 people were seriously injured by one guy with a knife. That shows someone can be just as deadly with a knife. I mean a knife doesn't need to be reloaded. God forbid someone goes on a rampage here with a sword. That would be a horrific scene (and I am being serious on that, that is one thing that I really hope never happens after seeing what one crazy person with a knife could do).

It's not like people are sniping people constantly over here either. That's one thing that people often blow out of proportion. I think there's been like 3 sniper cases that have made major media in the past 10 years over the whole us?

Also look at the population per area compared to where you live in New Zealand. How many people live in your greater town area? In the greater Houston area there are 8,456,920 as of the last census. Which is nearly double of all of New Zealand (4,242,048). You cramp that many people into one greater city, and people start getting crazy. Now look at how large New Zealand is, it is 103,483 square miles, and I know not all of that is non inhabitable, but the same can be said here. Greater Houston is only 11,357.3 square miles. Population density in New Zealand is 42 people for every square mile. Houston has a population density of 630 people per square mile. It's hard to fit that many people into an area without them getting a little crazy.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 5, 2014)

Fretless said:


> As for the second one knife violence can be just as extreme. The one we had here last year was just too intense when something like 22 people were seriously injured by one guy with a knife. That shows someone can be just as deadly with a knife. I mean a knife doesn't need to be reloaded. God forbid someone goes on a rampage here with a sword. That would be a horrific scene (and I am being serious on that, that is one thing that I really hope never happens after seeing what one crazy person with a knife could do).





I may prefer getting shot than attacked with a knife
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1468&bih=1427&tbm=isch&q=knife wounds


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 5, 2014)

Fretless said:


> It's hard to fit that many people into an area without them getting a little crazy.



My brother lives in Houston, and I'll see more crazy stuff in 5 minutes over there than I have my whole life living where I do now. Needless to say, I won't go near his house without my edc.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 5, 2014)

BornToLooze said:


> My brother lives in Houston, and I'll see more crazy stuff in 5 minutes over there than I have my whole life living where I do now. Needless to say, I won't go near his house without my edc.



That's because baytown PD tells all the criminals to come into our jurisdiction  just kidding of course! Some areas are pretty bad, but a good majority of our calls are just ridiculous calls such as, "This bar is too loud, my house is near it and I can hear the music! I should have thought harder about moving here, turn their music off now!" (yes I have been told that by two people, a husband and wife who call in every night about a bar XD)


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 5, 2014)

Actually, I live in Barbers Hill, I just figured Baytown was close enough people might know where it was. Luckily the most "exciting" thing I've heard about around here was a couple having sex in the park. I'm not going to say he lives in one of the bad areas, but I won a 1911 in a raffle and I gave it to him because he needs it a lot more than I do.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 5, 2014)

BornToLooze said:


> Actually, I live in Barbers Hill, I just figured Baytown was close enough people might know where it was. Luckily the most "exciting" thing I've heard about around here was a couple having sex in the park. I'm not going to say he lives in one of the bad areas, but I won a 1911 in a raffle and I gave it to him because he needs it a lot more than I do.



haha nice, I don't blame you for giving him the gun. Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard too much out of barbers hill.


----------



## Anchang-Style (Oct 5, 2014)

Glad to hear everybody was safe. Always crazy to hear stuff like that. The worst home intruders here are armed with are screw drivers, the hope no one is home and the knowledge the law can't touch them until they are 14 (well i ofcourse kid)...but guns...yeah. Heared of 2 gun fights in my life around here, never seen a gun no less even fired a gun in my life don't even know how switch the security off. Guess knifes and beeing beaten to pulp is the worst that can happen (which actually happens off and on here in hamburg). There was like a bunch of gun murder way before my time (my time in the big city atleast) when the red light distrct wars went down and the east block gangs had a street war with the Bouncers, pimp and bordell guys that ran business here in Hamburg. But that was the 90s.


----------



## acrcmb (Oct 5, 2014)

A gun and a car aren't the same thing, a car is a method of transport that as a result of being used so widely causes damage on occasions a gun has no purpose but to do damage to whatever it's shot at whether it be a target or a person,the difference is that causing damage is a side effect of driving where it's the primary function of a gun. Yes a knife can be bad there's no doubt about it but there's a reason they use guns not knifes when possible and I wasn't talking about snipers I mean with something like a knife they have to be within arms reach guns mean most people within in sight are in danger and the distance between the shooter and victim the gun allows removes all chance of a fight back.

I get what you're saying about population density but thats not really my point, my point is that yeah people are going to go a bit crazy but the side affects of this are much worse with guns around as when things get crazy theres highly efficient weapons available, imagine there's 2 drunk drivers they're both equal except when one goes to his garage to drive off he has a motorbike and the other guy has a hummer their motivations are the same but the guy in the hummer is going to cause more damage by driving because his car has more potential to do damage, basically it comes down to limiting the potential these people have to hurt others yeah people are going to get violent but would you rather a guy have access to a knife or a gun? I'm not even anti-gun i think they serve a geniune purpose for hunting and the like but I don't think they should be treated like a toy, yeah it's cool to shoot stuff with automatic rifles and high powered guns but if that means someone with one darker intentions has access to them too it's not worth it, i'd rather miss out on doing the cool stuff than know bad people have the same access to weapons, not trying to have a go or anything just find it's just odd coming from a society like the guy above where guns are things you just see on fictional tv show and news stories on warzones being almost trivialised elsewhere it's interesting to see how someone in that society views it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 5, 2014)

Guns are very deeply ingrained into American culture, and as already stated much of that goes all the way back to the founding of this country. We're pretty much one of the only first world nations with the right to bear arms baked right into the document first ratifying our country. 

It's to the point now that there are so many guns in legal circulation in the United States that we can't just take them all away. It would be like taking away all tennis shoes. The logistics of it are simply beyond what even an advanced society can handle. There will always be guns here. 

Unfortunately, the US doesn't have the best track record of social or economic equality, which has lead to there being pockets of strife which contribute to violent crime considerably. 

All that said, only a very very small portion of legal gun owners commit crimes.


----------



## Watty (Oct 5, 2014)

I feel like this thread is a bit dense for me to read through to see if this has been discussed, but I do have a question:

Do we know how the homeowner came to have the weapon handy during the event?

I feel like this scenario is not representative of a "victory in home defense" as you put it without a number of things swinging in the homeowner's favor. Say you're a responsible gun owner (i.e. gun is locked in a safe, unloaded with the safety on, and perhaps has a trigger lock fitted as well) and someone breaks in. In what universe do you have time to go get that gun and prepare it to fire in time to prevent anything? Unless his assailants were dumber than dirt (which is entirely possible), they would have broken in with little to no warning and he would have been shit out of luck.

What, was he sitting in an armchair with a loaded AK-47 within reach? Even if the outcome is "positive" in this case, it's hardly a victory to say that an irresponsible person happened to shoot the right target in the context of this situation. If anything, that would tend to show just how crazy gun culture has made some people, and I don't think it's anything to be celebrating, even when he did manage to prevent a robbery.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 5, 2014)

Watty said:


> Do we know how the homeowner came to have the weapon handy during the event?.



He probably had a gun for home defense.


----------



## tmo (Oct 5, 2014)

Fretless said:


> There is one reason why we never advise to shoot anything other than center mass. You will more than likely miss if you are not trained to handle stress and adrenaline of a shooting scenario. With shooting center mass you have several inches of room for your shots to deviate due to you hands shaking. Shooting a leg is not easy when you're in crisis mode.
> 
> Also we do not advise the whole shoot to kill motto that you think. We advise shooting to stop. If you're an ace shot combat vet who can handle that stress, go for a leg shot by all means. But remember if you miss and hit someone innocent, you have just committed murder.



I am generally a calm guy, I am not in favor to guns nor having guns at home, actually, I hate guns(edit: previously it was mistakenly written "have", which is the opposite of what I meant, sorry). I respect life too much to believe in guns, though when having a gun one should know how to use it properly. It's like driving a car.

Shooting the center mass is the best way to stop an aggression, ok, but it doesn't take my point down.

I have never ever used a real gun nor am willing to do so, so I'll never shout someone innocent. As Obiwan said, they are not elegant...



MaxOfMetal said:


> You don't know much about what guns do to the human body. A shot to the extremities can be just as lethal, and often is, as a shot to the center mass.
> 
> I'm not just talking about large caliber rounds fired out of big guns. Small bullets can and are just as deadly.
> 
> Also, as already stated, life isn't a video game. Shooting someone doesn't "take away their hit points", there is often still plenty of fight, if not more, in someone who has been shot.



I think I know enough of the human body to have an idea of what can harm it, let's see 1 whole year of human Anatomy at University, plus several years practicing Yoga and lots more on Kung Fu... I think I can say I know where to hit or how to disable without fatal damage. I have never suggested video games nor their _hitpoints_ strategy...




tedtan said:


> In addition to what Max said, if you injure someone (or they are injured while on your property in certain situations), they can not only press criminal charges against you (though they won't hold up if you can prove that it was done in self defense (note that the burden of proof shifts to you)), but they can also sue you for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars worth of damages in a civil suit. Even though they were injured while committing a crime against you. And even if you "win", you're still out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending the suit.
> 
> The US is just too lawsuit happy.



Being a martial arts practitioner for almost 20 years I think I am allowed to have an opinion on the _use of excessive force and knowledge of martial arts_ subject. It's a shame that in US is safer for one's budget to take a life in self defense than to save it.

In any of the free world countries, if you practice martial arts and are attacked, you better not kill or permanently injure your attacker, for it will be understood as use of excessive force.

Owning a gun means to be able to use excessive force (in my understanding), therefore I think I rest my case here.



MaxOfMetal said:


> (...)It's to the point now that there are so many guns in legal circulation in the United States that we can't just take them all away. It would be like taking away all tennis shoes. The logistics of it are simply beyond what even an advanced society can handle. There will always be guns here.
> (...)



The Chinese have a saying that a 10000 steps walk (as a long journey) starts with the first step, this to say that if there is no starting effort, it will never happen. The change must come from within. Marty McFly's great grand father (Back to the Future III) was a no gun advocate!... From a certain point in life, one chooses his own examples.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Oct 5, 2014)

Watty said:


> I feel like this thread is a bit dense for me to read through to see if this has been discussed, but I do have a question:
> 
> Do we know how the homeowner came to have the weapon handy during the event?
> 
> ...



Well, as a responsible gun owner the handgun I have for home defense is NOT unloaded, does not have a trigger lock, nor is it locked in a safe. As you stated, you don't have time to get a gun out of the safe, load it, take a trigger lock off and be able to use it in time to help yourself with it. Mine is in an easily accessible location and loaded. I have but to pick it up, rack the slide, and fire.

Now, I have no children so I don't need to worry about one picking it up. If I have company over that has children, my brothers for example, it is put away. And when I leave my home, it is placed into its holster on my hip. So there are no easily accessible firearms left unattended in my home. All my other weapons are safely locked away. My assault rifles are left unloaded as I would not use any of those for home defense for the reason that they are capable of going through my walls and those of my neighbors, possibly killing them.

I see your point about the homeowner in this case using an AK-47. I don't know though, maybe he doesn't have any neighbors living close enough to worry about it. 

In response to other points in this thread. I would not take pleasure in ending someone's life. I hope I never have to be in that situation. But I wouldn't take the chance of waiting to find out what an intruders intentions are. Anyone willing to take that chance might find themselves in a far worse situation. And this talk of "wounding" arm shots is just idealistic non-sense. That would take an awful lot of skill and the ability to do so in a high stress situation. Home invasions can be life or death situations and they are going to happen fast. This isn't the movies where the good guy is a crack shot and can shoot the weapon out of the bad guys hand. A shot to the arm doesn't disable their other arm, and a shot to the leg doesn't mean the intruder will drop the weapon, give up and wait for the police to arrive, and NOT sue you for crippling him. TMO you're in here quoting Jedi idealism. Another thread it was Professor X. And that gives a good indication of where your getting your viewpoint from. This is reality.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 5, 2014)

tmo said:


> I think I know enough of the human body to have an idea of what can harm it, let's see 1 whole year of human Anatomy at University, plus several years practicing Yoga and lots more on Kung Fu... I think I can say I know where to hit or how to disable without fatal damage. I have never suggested video games nor their _hitpoints_ strategy...



Oh, if we're comparing skill sets: I've been practicing Tae Kwon Do since my early teens (third degree black belt and two bronze competition medals), I'm a professionally trained First Responder (basically an EMT/Paramedic), a licensed HazMat professional, and a Red Cross certified aid worker. I've seen some pretty horrific things done to the human body in both competition and industry (I work at a large industrial plant.). 

I'm also a gun owner who has fired guns and even witnessed (unfortunately) the aftermath of improper gun use. 

If you think a gunshot to the extremities is not fatal, or likely to permanently maim in a way one would wish for death, you need to get a refund on your anatomy course. I've also seen folks get tremendous injury and just shake it off.  




> Being a martial arts practitioner for almost 20 years I think I am allowed to have an opinion on the _use of excessive force and knowledge of martial arts_ subject. It's a shame that in US is safer for one's budget to take a life in self defense than to save it.
> 
> In any of the free world countries, if you practice martial arts and are attacked, you better not kill or permanently injure your attacker, for it will be understood as use of excessive force.
> 
> Owning a gun means to be able to use excessive force (in my understanding), therefore I think I rest my case here.



If in self defense, excess force is pretty much permitted whether it's a gun, knife, or your fists, in the US. 



> The Chinese have a saying that a 10000 steps walk (as a long journey) starts with the first step, this to say that if there is no starting effort, it will never happen. The change must come from within. Marty McFly's great grand father (Back to the Future III) was a no gun advocate!... From a certain point in life, one chooses his own examples.



Like I said, guns are a big part of our culture, we just happen to have some other underlying issues that we need to sort out. Look at Canada, plenty of firearms, but less murder. While it would be easy to say "just get rid of guns" that wouldn't get rid of the precursors to most violence in this country. 

I feel that we need to focus on people and society and reduce crime as a whole, not just switch the tools around.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 5, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> My _semi automatic_ rifles are left unloaded as I would not use any of those for home defense for the reason that they are capable of going through my walls and those of my neighbors, possibly killing them.



The main reasons I wouldn't use a rifle or shotgun for home defense doesn't have anything to do with the chance of going through a wall, because a pistol round can too. First of all, try going through your house with a long gun with a 16"-18" barrel compared to a pistol. It's hard to maneuver something that long, even more so when you're half awake and terrified. Second, you might not be able to keep both hands on your weapon, whether you are on the phone with 911, or one of your kids runs out and you have to try and keep them out of the way. It is a lot easier to shoot a pistol with one hand than a long gun.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 5, 2014)

BornToLooze said:


> The main reasons I wouldn't use a rifle or shotgun for home defense doesn't have anything to do with the chance of going through a wall, because a pistol round can too. First of all, try going through your house with a long gun with a 16"-18" barrel compared to a pistol. It's hard to maneuver something that long, even more so when you're half awake and terrified. Second, you might not be able to keep both hands on your weapon, whether you are on the phone with 911, or one of your kids runs out and you have to try and keep them out of the way. It is a lot easier to shoot a pistol with one hand than a long gun.



I keep a shotgun for home defense. It's easy to load, and I won't have to aim it very well. The barrel isn't too long when shooting from the hip, so it's not too awkward moving around. Plus, chances are I'd likely use it as a blunt object. 

Not to mention, my wife is not as good with a weapon and I feel she'd be more likely to hit something with a shotgun than with a small handgun. 

I keep it loaded with birdshot, which has plenty of stopping power for home defense and I won't have to worry about it going through walls too much.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 5, 2014)

How often do you practice with it? Because at most home defense distances you'd only be looking at about a 4"-5" spread at most (depends on choke, barrel lenght, what kind of load, ect.) Most people I've see that buy shotguns for home defense think it'll be like in the movies and anything in that general direction is dead. And using a loaded shotgun as a blunt weapon is a great way to have a negligent discharge.

And with your wife I would definitely go through some kind of training class with her on how to operate a shotgun, so if it comes down to that, she won't have any problems with forgetting the safety or if there's a round in the chamber, or short stroking it, ect. 

And while I'm not going to tell you not to use birdshot, keep in mind, it was designed to kill little birds. Anything that isn't going to penetrate walls also isn't going to penetrate a bad guy. And if you practice enough with whatever weapon you chose, it won't matter if it will go through a wall or not because shooting it is second nature to you so you aren't going to miss.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 5, 2014)

BornToLooze said:


> How often do you practice with it? Because at most home defense distances you'd only be looking at about a 4"-5" spread at most (depends on choke, barrel lenght, what kind of load, ect.) Most people I've see that buy shotguns for home defense think it'll be like in the movies and anything in that general direction is dead. And using a loaded shotgun as a blunt weapon is a great way to have a negligent discharge.
> 
> And with your wife I would definitely go through some kind of training class with her on how to operate a shotgun, so if it comes down to that, she won't have any problems with forgetting the safety or if there's a round in the chamber, or short stroking it, ect.
> 
> And while I'm not going to tell you not to use birdshot, keep in mind, it was designed to kill little birds. Anything that isn't going to penetrate walls also isn't going to penetrate a bad guy. And if you practice enough with whatever weapon you chose, it won't matter if it will go through a wall or not because shooting it is second nature to you so you aren't going to miss.



I've owned it for some years now, it's a single shot, breach loader. As simple as it gets. While the spread will be small, those 5" are far more forgiving than a single round from a handgun. In a home defense situation, close range, I'll likely only have time for a single shot, then it becomes a blunt object. It's hard to have an accidental discharge with no live round in the chamber. 

My wife is not firearm inclined, but I do and have her come to the range with me to get comfortable with it. She's just never going to be super into guns and prefers how simple this one is. I've painted the safety lever blaze orange so it's easily seen. I've even had her disassemble and clean it. She's not gun inclined, not an idiot. 

Trust me, the birdshot is fine. I've played around with it on metal and concrete targets. It'll take someone down with 15` without question, but will will not go through my homes mostly concrete walls. I don't have kids so if goes through drywall that's fine. 

Thanks for the tips, and while I'm no gun expert I've been an owner and user for quite some time.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 6, 2014)

Damn, you get her to clean it? That's better than I got my wife to do. 

I was going to get her a pistol and she wanted something small and light, so I get her one and she didn't like it, but I let her shoot mine and what did she like?







4" N Frame .357


----------



## 7stg (Oct 6, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I've owned it for some years now, it's a single shot, breach loader. As simple as it gets. While the spread will be small, those 5" are far more forgiving than a single round from a handgun. In a home defense situation, close range, I'll likely only have time for a single shot, then it becomes a blunt object. It's hard to have an accidental discharge with no live round in the chamber.
> 
> My wife is not firearm inclined, but I do and have her come to the range with me to get comfortable with it. She's just never going to be super into guns and prefers how simple this one is. I've painted the safety lever blaze orange so it's easily seen. I've even had her disassemble and clean it. She's not gun inclined, not an idiot.
> 
> ...



I would want something with a few more rounds, think a small group, say 3 people working together to burglarize. If you are set on a shotgun, a simple pump shotgun would be fine.

There may be a reason your wife is not into it. Shotguns kick quite a bit. as this video shows an AR is much more manageable. Also, a 9mm with a lighter load works well then work up to +p+ variety. When purchasing confirm the gun is raited for the higher pressure of +p+, many are and some aren't.



Beyond the shotgun issue, please do not follow Joe's advice, it could get someone killed and you thrown in jail. Man Arrested for Firing Warning Shots: 'I Did What Joe Biden Told Me to Do' | National Review Online

As to birdshot, if the guy lives, the doctor that has to clean up the mess is going to hate you. I would go with at least #1 buckshot, but any type of buckshot would be better.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Like I said, guns are a big part of our culture, we just happen to have some other underlying issues that we need to sort out. Look at Canada, plenty of firearms, but less murder.



As a Canadian, I gatta point out that we don't have "plenty of firearms" in the same sense as Americans. The few people I do know who have guns keep them as tools for hunting- not for self defense. Guns here are not only fewer, but also heavily locked up. 

IMHO, there are not "underlying issues" causing guns to be a big part of your culture- the fact that guns are as big a part of your culture as they are IS the underlying issue.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 6, 2014)

acrcmb said:


> my point is it seems guns are so wide spread theres not the respect for them as deadly weapons they perhaps countries with stricter gun control have



Like the respect people in those countries have for knives, chainsaws, etc.?  




acrcmb said:


> killing power people in America have access to they're going to have use a knife or something up close



Guns don't have more killing power than knives; dead is dead. The only differences are, as you pointed out, 1) that a knife is a close range weapon, and 2) as someone else pointed out earlier, knives don't have to be reloaded.




acrcmb said:


> the difference is that causing damage is a side effect of driving where it's the primary function of a gun



Not necessarily.

We've had instances of people intentionally driving over someone, sometimes even running them over and then backing up over them and so forth resulting in running them over multiple times. So I would say that the intent of the person wielding the weapon is the key here, not the designer's intent in designing that weapon. And this holds true regardless of whether that weapon is firearm, a knife, or an improvised weapon like a car, a lead pipe, a pair of scissors, or whatever else happens to be at hand at the time someone decides to use it.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 6, 2014)

darren said:


> If someone goes into a house heavily armed and wearing body armour, i somehow doubt that robbery was their motive.





tedtan said:


> I would agree that this doesn't sound like a typical robbery. I won't be surprised if this turns out to be gang on gang violence (which accounts for most of the US violence statistics).



That was my thought as well. When I was on jury duty I was a part of a similar case where the burglar went in to the home while the owners were there and violated them, but they were in fact both drug dealers and the invader was looking to get his money from the guy. Doesn't justify it obviously, but if someone goes in heavily armed and at a time he knows the owner is home there is likely a reason (and no not usually some sexually deranged, homicidal reason).


----------



## tedtan (Oct 6, 2014)

tmo said:


> Being a martial arts practitioner for almost 20 years I think I am allowed to have an opinion on the _use of excessive force and knowledge of martial arts_ subject. It's a shame that in US is safer for one's budget to take a life in self defense than to save it.
> 
> In any of the free world countries, if you practice martial arts and are attacked, you better not kill or permanently injure your attacker, for it will be understood as use of excessive force.
> 
> Owning a gun means to be able to use excessive force (in my understanding), therefore I think I rest my case here.



Think what you will, but you still have to look at things in context. And the context here in the US, even though it seems silly, is that you face less liability for killing someone in self defense than injuring them in self defense. It's not a politically correct thing to say, but I'm sure it informs people's decision prior to their defending themselves.




tmo said:


> The Chinese have a saying that a 10000 steps walk (as a long journey) starts with the first step, this to say that if there is no starting effort, it will never happen.



Sure, but as Max pointed out, there are simply too many guns here to be able to round them up. And that's just the legal ones. There are plenty of illegal guns as readily available on the street as the drugs which are also illegal. And that doesn't take into account the extremely porous boarder with Mexico and the loads of guns smuggled into the US on a daily basis.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> the intent of the person wielding the weapon is the key here, not the designer's intent in designing that weapon.



When the topic at hand is gun violence, the intent of the design of a weapon is more important than the intent of the person using it, since in both scenarios the intent of the assailant is the same. I'd much rather give an angry person a car than a gun.

The design of a gun is such that it's convenient and effective at causing harm to someone in almost any scenario without having to be in close proximity to them. A car doesn't have those same properties. Cars are also not "cool 'cause they kill people".

The original point made about the car was that they are "more deadly", but sure, context isn't important right? There are a lot of automobile deaths because there are ridiculous amounts of people on the road at any given time. Many of them were probably driving drunk, or in dangerous conditions, or were just bad drivers. Accidents happen. - But instead, compare the number of intentional murders with guns to intentional murders via car.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> IMHO, there are not "underlying issues" causing guns to be a big part of your culture- the fact that guns are as big a part of your culture as they are IS the underlying issue.



I can't agree with this.

Even though we have some of the finest health care practitioners and facilities on the planet, the US doesn't offer universal health care like other first world countries. Our school systems have declined over the years due to the lack of funding and other reasons such as the requirement to teach children to pass standardized exams (e.g., memorization) rather than to think critically, etc.. There is no legitimate welfare system in many states for the people who do truly need assistance. There is an increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor, with the middle class decreasing due to being pulled into one of the above groups (most are joining the ranks of the poor, not the wealthy). And these poor people, in particular, have little chance of upward mobility unless they're great ball players because they're the ones in the underperforming schools, whose parents are most likely not well educated and therefore not pushing the children to do well in school, and have very little in the way of job prospects when they finish school (whether they graduate or drop out). In short, they're f_u_cked. And this situation leads these people to look to gangs and other criminal activity as very real options because, what other option do they have - starving to death?

The veneer of society is very thin, and when we don't take care of all members of society, that veneer cracks and the animal nature inherent in all of us tends to come out because we are programmed to survive.

So as a society, guns aren't the problem. They're a symptom of the deeper issues that need to be addressed in order to help people help themselves. When we remove the physical and philological drivers causing people to commit the crimes, guns become a non-issue.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> When the topic at hand is gun violence, the intent of the design of a weapon is more important than the intent of the person using it, since in both scenarios the intent of the assailant is the same. I'd much rather give an angry person a car than a gun.



My point is that a weapon becomes a weapon when it is USED as a weapon, not merely because it was designed to be a weapon. A gun hanging on the wall is merely decoration until someone chooses to use it as a weapon. The one wielding it chooses how it is utilized, even if it is contrary to the designer's original intent.


----------



## Mordacain (Oct 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> My point is that a weapon becomes a weapon when it is USED as a weapon, not merely because it was designed to be a weapon. A gun hanging on the wall is merely decoration until someone chooses to use it as a weapon. The one wielding it chooses how it is utilized, even if it is contrary to the designer's original intent.



Certainly. However, objects designed as weapons yield a greater potential destructive force than say a candlestick. You can kill someone with either, but one was purpose-built for the task and is far more effective at it.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I can't agree with this.



If you were to tell me that there was a "gun culture" among just the poor and people in gangs, sure. But it's not just them. It's everyone.

Thing things you said are not wrong- you've certainly described a plausible cause for high crime rates. They are legitimate and serious issues, but it doesn't explain or excuse the rest of the country's gun obsession. Even without the actual crime involved, there's still an unhealthy obsession with guns.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> If you were to tell me that there was a "gun culture" among just the poor and people in gangs, sure. But it's not just them. It's everyone.
> 
> Thing things you said are not wrong- you've certainly described a plausible cause for high crime rates.* They are legitimate and serious issues, but it doesn't explain or excuse the rest of the country's gun obsession. Even without the actual crime involved, there's still an unhealthy obsession with guns.*



What makes sport shooting unhealthy?


----------



## tedtan (Oct 6, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Certainly. However, objects designed as weapons yield a greater potential destructive force than say a candlestick. You can kill someone with either, but one was purpose-built for the task and is far more effective at it.



Of course, but you're still referring to potential rather than actual destructive force. The actual destructive force comes into effect only after the one wielding the gun or whatever chooses to covert the potential into the actual. We can't excuse the individual; he's the one that holds ultimate responsibility for his actions.




TedEH said:


> If you were to tell me that there was a "gun culture" among just the poor and people in gangs, sure. But it's not just them. It's everyone.
> 
> Thing things you said are not wrong- you've certainly described a plausible cause for high crime rates. They are legitimate and serious issues, but it doesn't explain or excuse the rest of the country's gun obsession. Even without the actual crime involved, there's still an unhealthy obsession with guns.



I've grown up around guns and have been shooting since I was a child. During that time, I've only met two or three people I would consider obsessed with guns (out of many thousands I've met through school, work, social events, etc.). And mind you, I'm in Texas, where obsession with guns is supposed to be the norm according to the folks who aren't actually here to see things first hand.

So before I can accept your premise, you'll need to define the term "unhealthy obsession with guns" and then prove that there is indeed an unhealthy obsession with guns in the US.

Having said that, perhaps there is an unhealthy obsession with guns all around me and I've simply not noticed it because I myself have an unhealthy obsession with music and guitars (and lately recording gear)   . Or perhaps I simply travel in different circles than these gun obsessed individuals.

But the term "unhealthy obsession with guns" does not describe the vast majority of people I've met in real life (right here in Texas).


----------



## flint757 (Oct 6, 2014)

I haven't met a whole lot of people who are 'obsessed' with guns [as in owning an arsenal of weapons (then again that isn't really my scene so I can't say one way or the other how common that is or isn't)], but I have met my fair share who seem to have an unhealthy idea of what a gun means to them (as in it is ingrained into their personality and how they see themselves).


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

JD27 said:


> What makes sport shooting unhealthy?



I said nothing about sport shooting.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I said nothing about sport shooting.



"* Even without the actual crime involved, there's still an unhealthy obsession with guns."

*Just sounded like you tossed a whole group of people under the bus. I guess you need to define what you consider and unhealthy obsession with guns.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

When I say gun obsessed, I'm talking about things like the need to shoot at every new iphone when it comes out. I'm talking about having shooting ranges as attractions at truck stops. I'm talking about the need to have high capacity magazines, or semi auto riffles, or guns that are only vaguely dissimilar from military or otherwise "assault weapons" in the same of "self defense" (read: because they're "cool"), when smaller or less powerful weapons would be more appropriate, assuming you even needed such a thing. I'm talking about being able to buy guns at walmart. I'm talking about how guns are so prominently featured in things like tv shows, youtube channels, music videos, etc. I'm talking about how war and combat is heavily romanticized. I'm talking about how some people think the solution to the gun problem is more guns.

I'm also talking about, even in this thread, the denial of the significance and potential of guns as a weapon compared to other objects in the hands of someone who's already decided to cause harm.

I realize that claiming all Americans are gun nuts is an exaggeration and over-simplification, but I'm not convinced that guns being ingrained in American culture is only a symptom of poverty and gang violence, and not it's own separate issue.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

JD27 said:


> Just sounded like you tossed a whole group of people under the bus.



'Cause the only things people do with guns are crime and sport shooting, right? Not sure what you're getting at.


----------



## SD83 (Oct 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> So before I can accept your premise, you'll need to define the term "unhealthy obsession with guns" and then prove that there is indeed an unhealthy obsession with guns in the US.



I wouldn't necessarily say "unhealthy", and "obsession" certainly not in the sense that people mess around with their guns every day, but the (official) number of guns per 100 people in the USA is about 3 times that of most European countries. And there is a HUGE difference in reaction (at least that is what our media tells us, I don't know how accurate that really is) to school shootings etc., if someone would suggest arming teachers to prevent stuff like that, he would more or less be sent to a madhouse right away. There is (appears to be?) strong gun lobby in the USA, for various reason, but that is really weird for someone who grew up in other countries. How many of the people you know own guns? I have met six people in my life who own guns, three of which are hunters and one is a police man. There might be a handfull more who own a gun that I don't know of. But if you don't count police men & hunters, I'd bet my next salary the number is a good deal below 10%  "Obsession" might not be the right word, but lets say for a German it seems as if the average US citizen is vastly more interested in guns than anyone else in the western world.

As for what makes sport shooting unhealthy... sure, a lot more people get injured playing soccer, football or tennis, but it's hard to kill someone with a soccer ball. And even with a baseball bat, you have to get really close. 99% of people killed by cars are killed by accident, 95% of people killed by guns are killed on purpose (I made that numbers up, but I don't believe they are THAT far off. I hope..."purpose" doesn't necessarily mean killing, more like "shoot with the intent to hit a person"). If you want to do it, I have no problem with that, but if you only want to use your gun at the shooting range, why not leave it there?

I still am convinced that if hardly anyone had a gun and criminals don't face the risk of getting shot, they would be much less likely to shoot someone themselves, which is pretty much the world I (believe to) live in, and I'm sure that way you'll have a lot less bloodshed, but that doesn't necessarily make it "better" or "worse". I think it is, others think otherwise. And even I know that none of that ways is 100% fool proof. Pacifism might be a great idea (actually I don't think so), but it only needs one person who doesn't want to play along to completly ruin it...

EDIT: Damn, I'm writing too slowly


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> 'Cause the only things people do with guns are crime and sport shooting, right? Not sure what you're getting at.



I'm wondering what it is that you think is unhealthy. So what are you getting at?


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

@JD27 - Three posts up:



TedEH said:


> When I say gun obsessed, I'm talking about[...]


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> @JD27 - Three posts up:



Ah, didn't see that before the last reply.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 6, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Certainly. However, objects designed as weapons yield a greater potential destructive force than say a candlestick. You can kill someone with either, but one was purpose-built for the task and is far more effective at it.



Off-point, the mental image of murder-by-candlestick is highly amusing in a way that's difficult to articulate.


----------



## asher (Oct 6, 2014)

Mordacain, with the Candlestick, in the Library.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Off-point, the mental image of murder-by-candlestick is highly amusing in a way that's difficult to articulate.



It was Colonel Mustard, in the library. Edit: beat me to it.

On topic though, I'll admit at this point that without actually living in the US I can only really judge based on things like news stories, tv shows, etc., so maybe I'm off base a bit, but who knows.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> When I say gun obsessed, I'm talking about things like the need to shoot at every new iphone when it comes out.


I can't answer that one. I will say there are people who don't respect them and probably don't deserve to own them. I've been shooting since I was 6. Safety and respect for firearms was something that i was taught at a very young age. Training is an aspect I would like to see improved before you can purchase. 


TedEH said:


> I'm talking about having shooting ranges as attractions at truck stops.


Never seen that, but I guess that's really the owners decision as to what they market. All states to have laws regarding construction and operation of ranges, so I would have to assume they are regulated just the same as a free standing range. 


TedEH said:


> I'm talking about the need to have high capacity magazines, or semi auto riffles, or guns that are only vaguely dissimilar from military or otherwise "assault weapons" in the same of "self defense" (read: because they're "cool"), when smaller or less powerful weapons would be more appropriate, assuming you even needed such a thing.


I get that some people like them because of that, but again as I said earlier, some people probably shouldn't own them. As for magazine capacity, there is no guarantee that you will stop an attacker with 1 shot, 5 shots, or even 10 shots... Shooting under stress in a defensive situation is not the same as shooting a static target. What if there are multiple attackers, what if they have closed too quickly to reload? AS What if you can't retreat? As for the appearance, I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Is it scarier if they look the same, even if they aren't? Does it make it any less or any more effective?


TedEH said:


> I'm talking about being able to buy guns at walmart.


They are regulated just the same as any gun store. They have a sporting goods section that sells hunting gear, so why not hunting firearms and ammo? You can buy guns in gas stations in Canada. How is it any different?



TedEH said:


> I'm talking about how guns are so prominently featured in things like tv shows, youtube channels, music videos, etc. I'm talking about how war and combat is heavily romanticized.
> .


That's not exactly exclusive to the US.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> It was Colonel Mustard, in the library. Edit: beat me to it.
> 
> On topic though, I'll admit at this point that without actually living in the US I can only really judge based on things like news stories, tv shows, etc., so maybe I'm off base a bit, but who knows.



It is and I can see why someone outside might not fully understand. I'm sure you can find that in a lot of subjects. For instance, I don't know why guys drown your fries in cheese curds and gravy.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 6, 2014)

Has anyone in this thread either been or known someone who has been under heavy suppressive fire by multiple combatants (and not while in the military)? I'd bargain that most people haven't even come into contact with just one. People tend to rob you when you least expect it or when you aren't even around. Most situations where your privacy is violated a gun won't help in the slightest. This 'be prepared' mindset borders on paranoia for the majority of people. 

My uncle owns several weapons and he has had his truck stolen anyhow. My mothers friend has had their car broken into 3 times and they are also gun owners. I and most everyone I know have never been robbed and the majority of us don't own any sort of weapons at all and those that do have never fired them outside of a range or heavy forested areas. 

Guns don't help if no one is around to pull the trigger and a smart thief doesn't rob you while you are home.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Has anyone in this thread either been or known someone who has been under heavy suppressive fire by multiple combatants (and not while in the military)? I'd bargain that most people haven't even come into contact with just one. People tend to rob you when you least expect it or when you aren't even around. Most situations where your privacy is violated a gun won't help in the slightest. This 'be prepared' mindset borders on paranoia for the majority of people.
> 
> My uncle owns several weapons and he has had his truck stolen anyhow. My mothers friend has had their car broken into 3 times and they are also gun owners. I and most everyone I know have never been robbed and the majority of us don't own any sort of weapons at all and those that do have never fired them outside of a range or heavy forested areas.
> 
> Guns don't help if no one is around to pull the trigger and a smart thief doesn't rob you while you are home.



I've never been in a serious car accident either, but I have health/car insurance just in case. Being paranoid is one thing, being alert is another. I don't consider it any different then having a plan to get out in case the house catches fire.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

JD27 said:


> I will say there are people who don't respect them and probably don't deserve to own them.



And those are the people I'm talking about. Are those people not a problem...?



> You can buy guns in gas stations in Canada



That's a video of a registered gun shop, framed very intentionally to make a point. The gun and the ammo both require permits, id, courses, etc. that take time and money to acquire, but of course they don't show you that. And it's one place. One. You absolutely cannot walk into any old gas station and buy a gun.

Even if it was the case that buying a gun in Canada was that easy, the mistake of one doesn't justify the other. 



> That's not exactly exclusive to the US.



You're probably right, but again, that's no justification.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

JD27 said:


> I've never been in a serious car accident either, but I have health/car insurance just in case. Being paranoid is one thing, being alert is another. I don't consider it any different then having a plan to get out in case the house catches fire.



You likely live in your home and drive your car daily. The level of risk is blatantly obvious despite your driving record. If you're frequently at risk of a situation that would require a gun, that a bigger issue than "insurance".

Also, I imagine tons of people would opt not to buy insurance if it wasn't a legal requirement.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Also, I imagine tons of people would opt not to buy insurance if it wasn't a legal requirement.



As an insurance broker, I can tell you that many choose to not buy insurance despite it being a legal requirement. There are a variety of ways to obtain an illegal proof of liability document (naturally, I won't go into the "how" of that matter).


----------



## tedtan (Oct 6, 2014)

SD83 said:


> And there is a HUGE difference in reaction (at least that is what our media tells us, I don't know how accurate that really is) to school shootings etc., if someone would suggest arming teachers to prevent stuff like that, he would more or less be sent to a madhouse right away.


 
I recently sat through a training class conducted by the Houston Police Department on how to survive such situations. The instructions were pretty much what any sane person would expect: 1) escape if possible, 2) hide behind something that provides cover from stray bullets (e.g., concrete pillars) if you can't get away, and 3) if the shooter breaches the door to the room you're in, fight like your life depends on it, because it does. There was no promotion of using guns (they actually cautioned against it due to bullets penetrating walls and injuring innocent people), but they did say to use any weapons you have available to you, including improvised weapons like scissors, box cutters, 2x4, etc. in stage 3.

But you're right that the media does seem to portray things a bit differently here than in other countries.




SD83 said:


> "Obsession" might not be the right word, but lets say for a German it seems as if the average US citizen is vastly more interested in guns than anyone else in the western world.



I believe that 100%. I just don't think the fact that US citizens have (and therefor use) more guns than people in other countries is the same thing as obsession with guns (as you point out), and certainly not to the extent that the obsession becomes unhealthy as tedEH claims.




SD83 said:


> I still am convinced that if hardly anyone had a gun and criminals don't face the risk of getting shot, they would be much less likely to shoot someone themselves, which is pretty much the world I (believe to) live in, and I'm sure that way you'll have a lot less bloodshed, but that doesn't necessarily make it "better" or "worse".



I agree here, too. The problem lies in implementing the removal of all guns to effect that situation. How can we actually accomplish this in the real world (keep in mind how ineffective the US' "war" on drugs has been over the decades)?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Oct 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Has anyone in this thread either been or known someone who has been under heavy suppressive fire by multiple combatants (and not while in the military)? I'd bargain that most people haven't even come into contact with just one. People tend to rob you when you least expect it or when you aren't even around. Most situations where your privacy is violated a gun won't help in the slightest. This 'be prepared' mindset borders on paranoia for the majority of people.
> 
> My uncle owns several weapons and he has had his truck stolen anyhow. My mothers friend has had their car broken into 3 times and they are also gun owners. I and most everyone I know have never been robbed and the majority of us don't own any sort of weapons at all and those that do have never fired them outside of a range or heavy forested areas.
> 
> Guns don't help if no one is around to pull the trigger and a smart thief doesn't rob you while you are home.



Nope, most thieves won't rob you while you're home. But are they all that smart?

And what is your point? Because you've never been the victim of a home invasion, while you were home, you shouldn't worry about it ever happening? 

Being prepared is being paranoid? I don't think so. But, you're right. Statistically speaking most people that have their homes robbed aren't home when it happens. That doesn't mean it won't happen. I'm sure all the people that have been assaulted in their homes didn't even contemplate it could happen to them. Until it did. I'd rather have the peace of mind.

That being said though. I don't own my firearms because I'm paranoid that someone is going to break in and kill me. I own them because I like the technical aspect of them. The skill it takes to use them effectively. The competition of going to the ranges or out in the country with friends and using them to have fun. In a lot of aspects it's the same reasons I own cool guitar gear. I'm not actively gigging and don't NEED everything I have, but if the situation arises to do so, I have the means.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> I just don't think the fact that US citizens have (and therefor use) more guns than people in other countries is the same thing as obsession with guns (as you point out), and certainly not to the extent that the obsession becomes unhealthy as tedEH claims.



I'll give you that "obsession" may have been the wrong choice of word, but I do think the American relationship with guns is unhealthy. The number of owners and users, in my mind, is an indication of a lack of respect for them. Opinions will vary, of course.



> The problem lies in implementing the removal of all guns to effect that situation.



I don't "remove all guns" is the solution, even if that was possible. But I do think that limiting the introduction of more is a step in the right direction.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 6, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Nope, most thieves won't rob you while you're home. But are they all that smart?
> 
> And what is your point? Because you've never been the victim of a home invasion, while you were home, you shouldn't worry about it ever happening?
> 
> ...



It wasn't a catch all statement. Someone above my post stated a bunch of random what ifs about being attacked by multiple combatants in their home. It is in fact paranoia. You could also be mugged at any point in time, get stuck in an elevator for hours, get in a deadly car accident, have your grill explode in your face, get attacked by a shark, get struck by lightening, the next airplane ride you take could crash, etc., but if you live your life like those things are going to most likely happen to you then you are in fact being paranoid (general you).

I never stated the act of owning a weapon was in itself paranoid behavior. The mindset of why some people do in many cases is though.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 6, 2014)

Okay, I've been away recording for a day in a place with 0 internet and phone reception (curse you middle of no where Texas!), and a lot has gone on here in the thread since I've been away. 

I'd like to mention that I was not and am not glorifying the fact that the guy killed the home invader. That was not my goal, my goal was not even to spark the gun debate that this turned into (granted it was kind of inevitable and this has actually been a great debate with a few exceptional posts on both sides). My goal was to say that it was a victory for the fact that the 25 year old male, and his family were all safe. I did not even mention that the suspect was killed in my original post because that was not my point. 

Like I said earlier, if there was a way to remove guns and gun violence successfully, I would not hesitate to take part in the effort. I do not support killing people, I do not support gun violence. Guns have their place in the world, and in the hands of irresponsible people they do not belong.


----------



## Unjustly-Labeled (Oct 6, 2014)

Speaking as a person living in a country with gun control laws stricter than the Americans have, I must say that the absence of guns among common people leaves the ability to bring violent intent towards another person completely in the hands of degenerate scum. People need very little training to pull a gun and shoot an attacker to defend themselves, but they need a lot of physical training and mental preparation in the form of drills, technical skills and ability to access violent intent in order to defend themselves without a gun. Criminals and people of a violent nature already has this from experience, normal people do not.

If we consider the amount of harm that you can cause using just your unarmed body, then the only real advantages you gain from guns are range, guaranteed deadliness and ease of use. Think of the human body as the weapon itself, and the gun as an amplifier of deadly force. Take away the gun, and you've still got all sorts of melee weapons, but even without those, just think about how easy it is to kill someone. Knock them out with a punch to their jaw, get them on the floor, then stomp on their head. Headbutt them in the nose, jam your thumbs into their eyes, throw them to the floor, then stomp on their head. Grab something from your environment, smash that over their head, get them on the floor, then yeah, yeah, you get the point. I think the knockout game that went on a couple of years ago shows how easily people get knocked out, and how vulnerable we are on the ground doesn't really need pointing out.

The gun just detaches us from the act of bringing violent intent upon another human being, and guarantees that maximum deadly force is utilized. The only thing taking away guns does is take away the detachment from killing someone, but that only really benefits "the bad guys".


----------



## Fretless (Oct 6, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> Speaking as a person living in a country with gun control laws stricter than the Americans have, I must say that the absence of guns among common people leaves the ability to bring violent intent towards another person completely in the hands of degenerate scum. People need very little training to pull a gun and shoot an attacker to defend themselves, but they need a lot of physical training and mental preparation in the form of drills, technical skills and ability to access violent intent in order to defend themselves without a gun. Criminals and people of a violent nature already has this from experience, normal people do not.
> 
> If we consider the amount of harm that you can cause using just your unarmed body, then the only real advantages you gain from guns are range, guaranteed deadliness and ease of use. Think of the human body as the weapon itself, and the gun as an amplifier of deadly force. Take away the gun, and you've still got all sorts of melee weapons, but even without those, just think about how easy it is to kill someone. Knock them out with a punch to their jaw, get them on the floor, then stomp on their head. Headbutt them in the nose, jam your thumbs into their eyes, throw them to the floor, then stomp on their head. Grab something from your environment, smash that over their head, get them on the floor, then yeah, yeah, you get the point. I think the knockout game that went on a couple of years ago shows how easily people get knocked out, and how vulnerable we are on the ground doesn't really need pointing out.
> 
> The gun just detaches us from the act of bringing violent intent upon another human being, and guarantees that maximum deadly force is utilized. The only thing taking away guns does is take away the detachment from killing someone, but that only really benefits "the bad guys".



Very well worded.


----------



## Mordacain (Oct 6, 2014)

JD27 said:


> What makes sport shooting unhealthy?



Sport-shooting is in and of itself, as a hobby, not unhealthy. When someone refers the unhealthy nature of the US' gun culture, they are referring to the fearful notion that guns (and typically lots of them with unfettered access to obtain more) is what is needed to defend yourself.

Personally, I love sport shooting. However, I absolutely detest the notion that I _need_ a gun for self-defense. Sadly, I do feel that way a lot of the time...not to defend myself from robbers and thugs as much as over-zealous, under-trained law enforcement, 'security' guards and gun-obsessed citizens that are hyper afraid of gangsta-boogeymen, kids in hoodies and Al-Qaeda.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> the only real advantages you gain from guns are range, guaranteed deadliness and ease of use[...]and guarantees that maximum deadly force is utilized.



I think that's a pretty significant advantage.


----------



## Unjustly-Labeled (Oct 6, 2014)

Fretless said:


> Very well worded.


Thanks!



TedEH said:


> I think that's a pretty significant advantage.


My point was that completely removing guns does not take away other peoples willingness to use violence for their own personal gain.


----------



## asher (Oct 6, 2014)

Sure.

But it _does_ make it much more difficult to cause the same amount of damage in the same amount of time.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> My point was that completely removing guns does not take away other peoples willingness to use violence for their own personal gain.



Arguably, it could prevent crimes of opportunity.


----------



## Unjustly-Labeled (Oct 6, 2014)

asher said:


> Sure.
> 
> But it _does_ make it much more difficult to cause the same amount of damage in the same amount of time.


And that gives an advantage to who? Assholes who are used to violence, or normal people who've never been violent?


----------



## asher (Oct 6, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> And that gives an advantage to who? Assholes who are used to violence, or normal people who've never been violent?



It means you put one crazy person in a theater or a school and not nearly so many people wind up dead, that's what.


----------



## Unjustly-Labeled (Oct 6, 2014)

asher said:


> It means you put one crazy person in a theater or a school and not nearly so many people wind up dead, that's what.


Alright, so say we've removed guns, then people who do those kinds of acts are gonna move on to home made bombs instead. The violence doesn't end just because one method of inflicting harm is removed.

Edit:
Also, allowing guns at least gives people the option of shooting back at the fvcker.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 6, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> Alright, so say we've removed guns, then people who do those kinds of acts are gonna move on to home made bombs instead. The violence doesn't end just because one method of inflicting harm is removed.



This is making a lot of assumptions. You're right that in some cases if the intent and will of an assailant is strong enough, the tool doesn't matter. But at the same time, a lot of crime happens because of opportunity or convenience, and in those cases, yes, some of the violence would end, because they would require too much time or effort to be worth it anymore. Shooting a gun is potentially a split second decision, but a bomb is premeditated. Very different scenario.


----------



## Mordacain (Oct 6, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> Alright, so say we've removed guns, then people who do those kinds of acts are gonna move on to home made bombs instead. The violence doesn't end just because one method of inflicting harm is removed.
> 
> Edit:
> Also, allowing guns at least gives people the option of shooting back at the fvcker.



Show one ounce of evidence that supports the idea that people who are denied guns will move on to homemade bombs for even 1% of all gun-related crime.

I'd argue it also gives the person returning fire more opportunity to hit other people as well.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Sport-shooting is in and of itself, as a hobby, not unhealthy. When someone refers the unhealthy nature of the US' gun culture, they are referring to the fearful notion that guns (and typically lots of them with unfettered access to obtain more) is what is needed to defend yourself.
> 
> *Personally, I love sport shooting. However, I absolutely detest the notion that I need a gun for self-defense*. Sadly, I do feel that way a lot of the time...not to defend myself from robbers and thugs as much as over-zealous, under-trained law enforcement, 'security' guards and gun-obsessed citizens that are hyper afraid of gangsta-boogeymen, kids in hoodies and Al-Qaeda.



So do I... I find sport shooting to be very relaxing actually. In order to shoot well, you need to be relaxed. It forces you to do so when you concentrate on proper form and technique. 

It would be awesome if you didn't need one for that reason. Like I said earlier, there is a difference between paranoia and preparation. I don't walk around all day worried something is going to happen. However, the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows, I don't care where it is you live. I accept the fact that bad people exist and they do very bad things, ever day in fact. I choose to be prepared, everyone has to make that decision for themselves. I guess it comes down to what level of risk you are happy living with.


----------



## asher (Oct 6, 2014)

I think I've heard more stories about people defending themselves with fencing weapons and Master Swords than guns. With the exception of this story... the only one I can think of is the guy who drew on one of the two perps in the Wal Mart in Vegas(?) and got wasted by the other one. The man and woman team who shot some cops and went on a run and held up a WalMart. That good guy with a gun would still be alive if he hadn't been carrying.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

asher said:


> I think I've heard more stories about people defending themselves with fencing weapons and Master Swords than guns. With the exception of this story... the only one I can think of is the guy who drew on one of the two perps in the Wal Mart in Vegas(?) and got wasted by the other one. The man and woman team who shot some cops and went on a run and held up a WalMart. That good guy with a gun would still be alive if he hadn't been carrying.



You're not looking very hard then. They already shot 2 police officers before running in wal-mart, how do you know more people wouldn't have been killed?

What if this person had not stepped in?
Police interview Oklahoma beheading suspect in hospital - CNN.com


----------



## Xaios (Oct 6, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> Alright, so say we've removed guns, then people who do those kinds of acts are gonna move on to home made bombs instead. The violence doesn't end just because one method of inflicting harm is removed.



There's a difference between a gun and a bomb. A gun can represent the threat of violence just as much as actual violence itself. The purpose of a bomb, conversely, is almost always strictly to carry out an act of violence. I sincerely doubt that we'd see anyone try to mug a convenience store by threatening to detonate a bomb if the cashier doesn't empty the register. Seems kind of counter-productive.

A gun also allows for range, the ability to down a target without being in close proximity, which provides a certain sense of safety for the person who's trying to commit a crime, a sense which very possibly makes the difference between committing and not committing that particular crime for the perpetrator.

Guns also allow for adaptation to changing circumstances. You can also do this with a knife, but you have to risk getting into close quarters. Meanwhile with a bomb, if your intended target never gets in range of the blast, said bomb becomes pretty damn useless.


----------



## Unjustly-Labeled (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> This is making a lot of assumptions. You're right that in some cases if the intent and will of an assailant is strong enough, the tool doesn't matter. But at the same time, a lot of crime happens because of opportunity or convenience, and in those cases, yes, some of the violence would end, because they would require too much time or effort to be worth it anymore. Shooting a gun is potentially a split second decision, but a bomb is premeditated. Very different scenario.


Stealing a family members gun and smuggling it with you, or bringing your own gun is pretty damn premeditated. Also, you're assuming that having no guns would remove their intent due to it being too bothersome. It wouldn't. It might delay their plans for a week or two, maybe.



Mordacain said:


> Show one ounce of evidence that supports the idea that people who are denied guns will move on to homemade bombs for even 1% of all gun-related crime.
> 
> I'd argue it also gives the person returning fire more opportunity to hit other people as well.


I dunno if I need to look deeper than Anders Breivik, who used both guns and a bomb for his acts of violence.

Overall, I think people are focusing too hard on the delivery method of violence, rather than how to stop the intent to commit violence. Once the discussion shifts towards that, I think we may finally get closer to a solution.


----------



## TheKindred (Oct 6, 2014)

JD27 said:


> ? You can buy guns in gas stations in Canada. How is it any different?
> 
> That's not exactly exclusive to the US.






TedEH said:


> You absolutely cannot walk into any old gas station and buy a gun.
> Even if it was the case that buying a gun in Canada was that easy, the mistake of one doesn't justify the other.



Did I miss something in that video? It's in a Kentucky gas station, nowhere near Canada. You absolutely cannot walk into a gas station/grocery store up here and buy a Famas knockoff. Edit: should have watched whole video.... Ted was right; that's a small town gun store selling unrestricted rifles. Not the norm.

There's big differences here between what is considered Restricted vs. Prohibited (rimshot and bolt action center-fire have a separate category called non-restricted). The only way to play (legally) with a handgun or AR type is at a range. You have to get a specific permit just to transport it to and from the range, and it literally only covers to and from; no stops between. To get your RPAL (restricted possession acquisition license), you HAVE to complete back checks AND pass a government safety course.

Also, up here, there is no general legal defense for shooting someone in your home. If your weapons and ammunition were stored correctly and legally, there should be no way they're accessible enough that the better option isn't to have bugged out.

It's not perfect, but a lot of Canadians own guns and we don't seem to have as many issues with them (accounting for population difference). In fact our laws have a weird ambiguity to them that actually permits some crazy shit to happen. Case in point; you cannot modify a shotgun (ie saw off) barrel to less than 18 inches, however, you can buy one that is mag-fed and stock at 8.5 inches(and is considered legal AND NON-RESTRICTED because it's stock). This would be a very illegal firearm in most states. Same with magazine size; semi-auto centerfire cannot exceed 5+1 cartridges for the stock magazine, BUT, turns out 10 .226 rounds fit nicely in a beowulf .50 magazine and that just happens to also fit your AR15. Since the magazine is made for another rifle, not the ar15, it's legal to use in an ar15 (with 10+1).

TL;DR just north of the border still has some crazy firearm laws and quirks, but the rest of the world doesn't auto-perceive us as gun crazy because we don't embrace that 'gun culture' mindset (mostly).


----------



## JD27 (Oct 6, 2014)

TheKindred said:


> Did I miss something in that video? It's in a Kentucky gas station, nowhere near Canada. You absolutely cannot walk into a gas station/grocery store up here and buy a Famas knockoff.
> 
> There's big differences here between what is considered Restricted vs. Prohibited (rimshot and bolt action center-fire have a separate category called non-restricted). The only way to play (legally) with a handgun or AR type is at a range. You have to get a specific permit just to transport it to and from the range, and it literally only covers to and from; no stops between. To get your RPAL (restricted possession acquisition license), you HAVE to complete back checks AND pass a government safety course.
> 
> ...



I am aware of the Canadian gun laws. It was in response to the "why can you buy them in every wal-mart" question. Just like the Canadian store pictured, you have to go through a background check at Wal-mart. My point was what is the difference where you can buy one if it is regulated. That store is in Pembroke, Ontario. You probably didn't watch it all the way through, open the video in youtube and look in the description.


----------



## GuitarSamurai (Oct 6, 2014)

I never owned a gun until someone broke into my home and stole most of my guitars and did $10,000 in damage. Then I thought what would I have done if I was here? Hide in a room and hope everything works out for me? 

The reality is horrible things happen every day and you should have the right to protect yourself and your family if something does happen. A security system is probably the best thing you could do but having a way to protect yourself isn't a bad idea.

If a criminal is crazy enough to break into your home, he is probably crazy enough to do harm to your family. Do you really want to sit down and ask the intentions of someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night?


----------



## Mordacain (Oct 6, 2014)

GuitarSamurai said:


> If a criminal is crazy enough to break into your home, he is probably crazy enough to do harm to your family. Do you really want to sit down and ask the intentions of someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night?



No, of course not. However, the idea that guns are the de facto means of defense is part of my problem with this though. I keep a large knife for defense for a few reasons: 


More likely to do damage to the assailant in the middle of the night with minimal light
Less likely to damage my house, my possessions and the people I'm trying to protect
Less likely to accidentally damage an innocent (say my wife when she's just coming back to bed) - referencing the cop who shot his own daughter here
 I will say though, if you really want to have a gun as your weapon for self defense in the home, you are better off with a shotgun with a pellet or salt load or a good, reliable handgun. I've yet to understand why someone would want an assault weapon as their preferred means of home defense; are they afraid that bandits are going to storm the house all Christmas Story style?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LgEvQuyDxE


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 6, 2014)




----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 6, 2014)

ITT: Folks who don't live in America telling Americans what the problem is. 

Sorry guys, our cultures are different. We treat many things, gun control and guns in general, very differently. I'm not saying that we're [Americans] doing it right, because we probably aren't, but saying "No you're wrong, be different!" isn't going to make a lick of difference. 

Throw in that most of what you know about American gun laws and culture is being seen through the eyes of the media, which is never a good thing. 

Personally, I feel that if we, Americans, as a people fix many social issues, we'll have a far greater impact than just limiting legal weapons. Notice how I never said that limiting weapons is bad? 

We have to:
-Better educate our children
-Better educate our poor
-Reform our welfare system
-Reform our healthcare system
-Work on equality for all walks of life

If we do those five things, we'll see a significant drop in violent crime and isn't that what we all want?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> On topic though, I'll admit at this point that without actually living in the US I can only really judge based on things like news stories, tv shows, etc., so maybe I'm off base a bit, but who knows.


 
Holy shit, I do believe this is the first time I've ever seen anyone on SSO make that concession.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 7, 2014)

If a person is intent on doing harm they will use what they have available.

There have been many reports of knives being used in attacks
China Knife Attack: Teen Reportedly Kills 8, Wounds 5 In Northeast
Six stabbed to death in family dispute in Beijing | Reuters
China knife attack leaves at least 33 dead and 143 wounded at Kunming train station | Daily Mail Online
BBC News - Chinese man 'stabs five people to death' in Henan
School attacks in China (2010

Hammers too
North Side hammer attack kills 3 in family - Chicago Tribune

And baseball bats
Three killed in baseball bat attack in Lake County - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 7, 2014)

As a long time gun owner, I will say: we need better legislation. Much better. Those two pictures above are at the heart of it. 

Most politicians here are in one of two groups:

1) Those who want to appease the gun enthusiasts by reducing legislation and restrictions. 
2) Those who want more legislation and restrictions but don't know jack shit about guns. 

Unfortunately, that's pretty much all we have at the top.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 7, 2014)

^ yep

They want to ban what they are afraid of and don't understand.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 7, 2014)

In history, slaves were the class of people not allowed to have weapons.

One of the provisions of the The 1712 South Carolina slave code included -
Slave homes were searched every two weeks for weapons or stolen goods. Punishment escalated from loss of an ear, branding and nose-slitting to death on the fourth offense.

In Rome, slaves as a class, were banned from carrying weapons unless they we serving as the body guard of their owners


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 7, 2014)

Eh, if there's one place we need to stop looking for advice on gun control it's the past. 

The world is an incredibly different place. Falling back on "ye olden days" is pretty useless. 

I'm not saying burn your history books, far from it. I just think we need a fresh perspective in these modern times.


----------



## Mordacain (Oct 7, 2014)

They're aren't a whole lot of people percentage-wise that want to ban guns though. Most people want reasonable restrictions (like not allowing your average joe with an axe to grind access to a nuclear bomb or shit-tons of fertilizer).

/Edit: forgot my references: http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Defining what reasonable restrictions are is where your layman runs into a problem due to lack of knowledge.

The gun lobby, however, wants 0 restrictions usually based upon some bullshit slippery slope logical fallacy.

Personally, I think all gun sales should require a competency test verifying that you can show proper shooting etiquette and technique, knowledge about the firearm (including a monitored field-strip and reassembly) and that every owner has to have a registered gun-safe and locking mechanism keyed to their biometrics to prevent unauthorized use. 

To some, that would seem excessive, but to me that doesn't seem any different than getting an automobile license and carrying insurance to protect other people and yourself against accidents. Of course, like driver's licenses, that won't keep idiots off the road but that's a whole other conversation.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 7, 2014)

Not being any different than having a driver's license would be having to have a concealed carry license. If you want to drive a car on a public road, you have to have a drivers license. If you want to carry a gun with you in public you have to have a concealed carry license.


----------



## Mordacain (Oct 7, 2014)

BornToLooze said:


> Not being any different than having a driver's license would be having to have a concealed carry license. If you want to drive a car on a public road, you have to have a drivers license. If you want to carry a gun with you in public you have to have a concealed carry license.



I would agree that it is not any different if your car is like this:





The idea behind having concealed carry is because a gun is a threatening thing to anyone who is not a gun enthusiast, as are knives, sticks, bats, swords or anything that is commonly used to cause physical harm when seen outside of their normal context.

Why do people get hung up on this open-carry thing. A gun in public is threatening and panic-inducing, particularly in a country that is having ever-increasing numbers of public shootings.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 7, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> I would agree that it is not any different if your car is like this:






...




I want it.


----------



## Choop (Oct 7, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> The idea behind having concealed carry is because a gun is a threatening thing to anyone who is not a gun enthusiast, as are knives, sticks, bats, swords or anything that is commonly used to cause physical harm when seen outside of their normal context.
> 
> Why do people get hung up on this open-carry thing. A gun in public is threatening and panic-inducing, particularly in a country that is having ever-increasing numbers of public shootings.



There's that, but there's also the reasoning that if one ever needed to use their gun, it'd be far more effective if the criminal/attacker/whatever wasn't aware of the gun beforehand.

As far as open-carry, I dunno if people necessarily need to feel afraid of someone who is exercising their right to open-carry (though I know it does make people uneasy). Pretty sure most criminals aren't open-carrying handguns on their hip. But that's just my uneducated assumption on the matter. I only open carry when I'm in the woods, but I feel like in a public setting for self defense it would probably be more disadvantageous in a number of ways than carrying concealed.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 7, 2014)

In an ideal world I would not mind a training class requirement and license. It would be good for the uninformed to learn the 4 rules of gun safety, proper gun maintenance, and proper form, but the problem is the liberal politicians such as Dianne Feinstein and Ginny Burdick are on record saying they want full confiscation. Any registration then becomes a database for confiscation.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 7, 2014)

I think the main problem with guns, is too many people are ignorant about guns. Everyone I know that is safe with guns learned about them in one place. They grew up shooting. They have had gun safety drilled into their head for as long as they can remember. Most of the people I've seen that aren't safe with a gun got a gun because of some kind of event. September 11th, the shootings we've had recently, their neighbor's friend got mugged, so they're going to get a gun and get their concealed carry licence, ect. Then they go to the store, buy a gun that looks nice, maybe shoot a box of bullets through it, and take a picture with it to put on facebook. They don't practice with it, they don't clean it, and they rarely carry it. And when they do actually go to the range with it, they don't actually practice, they blast away at the target. Maybe 3 rounds go where their supposed to, the rest barely hit paper.

This was my target from a couple months ago




Nobody could understand how I was shooting so good when my target was so far away (15 yards instead of 3 or 5). In my mind that's borderline acceptable for someone that's carrying a gun.

I can't understand why if you are carrying a pistol that you are going to rely on to save your life, you wouldn't seek out training, whether it is required or not. It's the same thing as wanting to be the next Steve Vai, buying a guitar and then never practicing. I don't think that people should be required to take training to own a gun, I think that people should be raised around guns, so they would realize what a huge responsibility owning a gun is and that they would want to seek out training so they could better themselves at shooting.

And as far as open carry, I support it, but just because it would be a lot easier if I had to run to the store for something I could just have my shirt halfway covering my gun. 90% of people probably wouldn't notice it anyways because they're too busy playing on their phones.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 7, 2014)

BornToLooze said:


> Nobody could understand how I was shooting so good when my target was so far away (15 yards instead of 3 or 5). In my mind that's borderline acceptable for someone that's carrying a gun.



Psh, That's nothing


----------



## TedEH (Oct 7, 2014)

GuitarSamurai said:


> If a criminal is crazy enough to break into your home, he is probably crazy enough to do harm to your family.



I disagree with this entirely. Every case of home invasion I've encountered or heard about from non-news sources involved either misunderstandings or teens who were pushing boundaries or trying to make a quick buck. I've had things stolen from my home and the invader was scared away by a dog. I've been asked to help break in somewhere by a teenage girl who was trying to get back at a family member she was arguing with. One of my uncles had a gun pointed at him for returning late at night and startling the other people _in his own home._

That's where it's clear that you're talking about paranoia. The image of the the "crazy bad guy" breaking into your house to try to murder and rape everyone for no reason other than being crazy is not grounded in reality.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 7, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Sorry guys, our cultures are different.



IMO, while you're not wrong, it's irrelevant. As a Canadian, I know that 90% of our "culture" is borrowed from the US anyway. We're not as different as you think.

Also, part of the discussion, as I see it, is that "it's part of our culture" should not be an excuse. We all spend enough time exerting our values on other cultures, we should be just as receptive of criticism when the reverse is done to us.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 7, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I disagree with this entirely. Every case of home invasion I've encountered or heard about from non-news sources involved either misunderstandings or teens who were pushing boundaries or trying to make a quick buck. I've had things stolen from my home and the invader was scared away by a dog. I've been asked to help break in somewhere by a teenage girl who was trying to get back at a family member she was arguing with. One of my uncles had a gun pointed at him for returning late at night and startling the other people _in his own home._
> 
> That's where it's clear that you're talking about paranoia. The image of the the "crazy bad guy" breaking into your house to try to murder and rape everyone for no reason other than being crazy is not grounded in reality.



Dangerous games have dangerous consequences. I don't have sympathy for criminals, mischievous teens, crazy people, or any other jackass who is stupid enough break in your house. I don't care if you where having a bad day, bad week, or bad life... Not my problem, you stay out of a mans house. If I wanted you there, I'd ask you to come in... but I don't. I'm not saying they deserve to be shot and killed for entering, but when you violate my home the burden is on you! Nobody knows their intentions except for the person that just broke in. But, using a gun is always the last option. You have to react to the situation, the mere sight of someone in front of them with a gun, may be enough for them to leave or it might not. But, that's why I have a security system and keep doors/windows locked. I don't need one of these morons to surprise me.


----------



## ghostred7 (Oct 7, 2014)

BornToLooze nailed it IMO. If you are going to be a firearm owner...you are doing yourself and your family a disservice by not maintaining your equipment and staying proficient (and even trying to push your proficiency) on your weapon. I'm for both OC and CC, personal preference of the person doing it. Pros and cons for both and certainly don't want to go down the rabbit hole of debating it.

Oh...and good grouping! I personally do 25y. That falls into my pushing proficiency thing. I can get solid grouping at 15y, but unless doing same at 25y consistently, I'm staying there. 

I also agree mostly with what JD27 said. If someone comes into your house uninvited...you are NOT going to have enough reaction time to gauge their intent. If you were a responsible gun owner, you would have attended a Conceal Carry class or 3. One of the first things you learn is that you do not draw a weapon unless there is intent to use it. We are not policemen. If we are drawing a weapon, it's because we fear our lives are in danger. If someone comes into my house uninvited, especially at night, my reaction time will be focused on family safety 1st, not trying to do a psychological profile on the fly.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 7, 2014)

TedEH said:


> IMO, while you're not wrong, it's irrelevant. As a Canadian, I know that 90% of our "culture" is borrowed from the US anyway. We're not as different as you think.
> 
> Also, part of the discussion, as I see it, is that "it's part of our culture" should not be an excuse. We all spend enough time exerting our values on other cultures, we should be just as receptive of criticism when the reverse is done to us.



I have to agree with this. "It's part of our culture" is a phrase that can be used to justify some pretty horrifying stuff, like honor killings. "My daughter is not Muslim enough, so I killed her. It's part of our culture, so you can't sit in judgment over me."

Perhaps that parallel seems a bit extreme, but when you get down to brass tacks, I'd wager that the gun violence causes more deaths.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 7, 2014)

TedEH said:


> IMO, while you're not wrong, it's irrelevant. As a Canadian, I know that 90% of our "culture" is borrowed from the US anyway. We're not as different as you think.
> 
> Also, part of the discussion, as I see it, is that "it's part of our culture" should not be an excuse. We all spend enough time exerting our values on other cultures, we should be just as receptive of criticism when the reverse is done to us.





Xaios said:


> I have to agree with this. "It's part of our culture" is a phrase that can be used to justify some pretty horrifying stuff, like honor killings. "My daughter is not Muslim enough, so I killed her. It's part of our culture, so you can't sit in judgment over me."
> 
> Perhaps that parallel seems a bit extreme, but when you get down to brass tacks, I'd wager that the gun violence causes more deaths.



Y'all need to reread what I posted. I was not excusing our culture, nor was I saying that our different culture is a justification. I wasn't deflecting criticism either. If anything I've been pretty critical of how things are over here, but scolding the us isn't going to change a thing. 

You can sit there and put meanings in my post that aren't there and just assume us Americans are gun toting loons, or we can discuss some real problems. 

Let me know when we can talk about these issues in a meaningful way instead of the default "America should be Canada and isn't doing so because they're stupid." shtick that happens in every gun thread on here. 

So, to reiterate:
-America is flawed socially which breeds violence 
-Our politicians are ineffective when it comes to gun control 
-We have more guns than anyone ever should 

Well, that's on the table. So, are we ready to talk?


----------



## tedtan (Oct 7, 2014)

asher said:


> It means you put one crazy person in a theater or a school and not nearly so many people wind up dead, that's what.





TedEH said:


> This is making a lot of assumptions. You're right that in some cases if the intent and will of an assailant is strong enough, the tool doesn't matter. But at the same time, a lot of crime happens because of opportunity or convenience, and in those cases, yes, some of the violence would end, because they would require too much time or effort to be worth it anymore. Shooting a gun is potentially a split second decision, but a bomb is premeditated. Very different scenario.





TedEH said:


> The image of the the "crazy bad guy" breaking into your house to try to murder and rape everyone for no reason other than being crazy is not grounded in reality.



As I mentioned above, my employer's HR department recently thought it was a good idea to have all employees sit through a training class on surviving an "active shooter". An active shooter is someone who goes into a school, movie theater, etc. and starts shooting people as opposed to someone who robs a convenience store or similar. One of the key concepts of this class was that these two groups are very different from one another, so we need to separate the discussion here into two separate groups.

A person who robs a convenience store, bank or breaks into your home is after money or something they can sell for money. They are probably scared and may end up shooting people or taking hostages, but that is not their motivation. Their motivation is to obtain money. Because of this, they are more rational and easier to deal with.

An active shooter, on the other hand, is motivated to kill people. He's not after money or things he can sell, he's hell bent on killing as many people as he can and dying in the process. He has premeditated his actions, sometimes even casing the place he intends to carry out his plan and walking through the motions in a trial run. Their best physiological profile of active shooters indicates that these people enjoy the planning of these actions much like serial killers get off on planning their kills. 

So when we eliminate or reduce access to legal guns, we might in fact reduce the number of crimes of opportunity, or at least reduce their severity (though I doubt this due to the number of easily accessible illegal guns on the black market here).

But this won't do anything to stop the active shooters because their motivation is different. As Unjustly-Labeled mentioned earlier, these people will use whatever is available to them to carry out their plans, including improvised explosive devices. If you want proof of this, just look at the Columbine High School massacre: there were dozens of explosive devices and booby traps these kids planted in and around the school before they started shooting people, and some of the people injured and/or killed were injured by these explosives rather than the gunfire. From here we can look to Timothy McViegh and the Oklahoma City bombing, the first World Trade Center bombing back in 1993, the Tokyo subway serin gas attack in 1995, and the Anders Breivik attack in Norway.

These people are simply not sane and will do whatever is necessary to achieve their nefarious ends, so if we want to stop them, we need to learn to identify them physiologically before they act so we can prevent these situations from occurring in the first place. Simply removing easy access to firearms will do no more to help prevent these situations than will putting a Band-Aid on a venomous snake bite keep the victim from dying.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 7, 2014)

Unjustly-Labeled said:


> Overall, I think people are focusing too hard on the delivery method of violence, rather than how to stop the intent to commit violence. Once the discussion shifts towards that, I think we may finally get closer to a solution.



This. We need to move beyond they superficial symptoms of the issue so we can actually solve the real problems.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 7, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Simply removing easy access to firearms will do no more to help prevent these situations than will putting a Band-Aid on a venomous snake bite keep the victim from dying.



I don't deny that those example exist, I'm just not of the opinion that those are the majority of cases. This thread was originally about a home invasion, which is a wholly different situation and circumstance, and a lot more common than mass killings/terrorism/etc.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 7, 2014)

> I wasn't deflecting criticism either.





MaxOfMetal said:


> ITT: Folks who don't live in America telling Americans what the problem is.



I interpreted this as "if you're not American, your opinions of American culture are irrelevant". If that's not what you meant, then my bad.


----------



## narad (Oct 7, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> That being said though. I don't own my firearms because I'm paranoid that someone is going to break in and kill me. I own them because I like the technical aspect of them. The skill it takes to use them effectively. The competition of going to the ranges or out in the country with friends and using them to have fun. In a lot of aspects it's the same reasons I own cool guitar gear. I'm not actively gigging and don't NEED everything I have, but if the situation arises to do so, I have the means.



I wish more people were this honest about their gun motivations. It's clear if you're online posting pics of your gun collection and posing with things etc., it's clearly not always the thought of infringing on liberty that is worrisome with gun control - it's the thought of it infringing on a hobby. 

Simultaneously, if anyone wants a secure house and approached it with the same fervor that gun aficionados approach their guns, there'd be some insanely awesomely secure homes around. But that just doesn't seem to have the same widespread appeal.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 7, 2014)

narad said:


> I wish more people were this honest about their gun motivations. It's clear if you're online posting pics of your gun collection and posing with things etc., it's clearly not always the thought of infringing on liberty that is worrisome with gun control - it's the thought of it infringing on a hobby.
> 
> Simultaneously, if anyone wants a secure house and approached it with the same fervor that gun aficionados approach their guns, there'd be some insanely awesomely secure homes around. But that just doesn't seem to have the same widespread appeal.



There is definitely a hobby side to firearms ownership for a lot of people. Some people get caught up on the why do you need so many of them. I have more than few and much like guitars they each have their own purpose. A good defensive pistol doesn't necessarily make the best target shooting pistol. A good hunting rifle doesn't necessarily make a good home defense firearm. Just like I enjoy modding my guitars, I also enjoy building out pistols or rifles from stock configuration. It really depends on what the intended use for the firearms is. I also enjoy older firearms from an historical perspective, it's the same reason I am interested in Military History.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 7, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I interpreted this as "if you're not American, your opinions of American culture are irrelevant". If that's not what you meant, then my bad.



I meant it as an example of the tone and direction of many of the posts in here. More specifically, and you've admitted this to your credit, that maybe there's something you just don't quite understand about the American mindset/culture and it's causing an impass here. 

You will never quite understand how Americans view firearms by just watching from the mediated and filtered sidelines. Just as I'll never understand what it's like to think of hockey as a Canadian. (I hope you take that last part as light hearted as its meant. ) 

That's all okay though, because like it or not, the problems in this country are very difficult and multi-faceted. It's not just a numbers game of how many guns or how many bullets those guns hold. 

People aren't getting shot left and right here because everything is fair and everyone is happy. That's the real root of all this. 

If we had less guns would we have less gun violence? Yes! That's not really debatable. Though, we have to realize that the less gun ship set sail many generations ago. It'll take just as long to reduce the numbers as it did to grow them. That's the shitty, harsh reality. 

Though, wouldn't it be just as good, if not better, for us to try and remove the inequality and strife that motivates people to do terrible things?


----------



## TedEH (Oct 7, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Just as I'll never understand what it's like to think of hockey as a Canadian.



I'm not a fan of hockey, so I'm with you on that one.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 7, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'm not a fan of hockey, so I'm with you on that one.



What??? I love hockey  I do hate baseball so I guess that's the same difference.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 7, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'm not a fan of hockey, so I'm with you on that one.



Traitor.


----------



## asher (Oct 8, 2014)

I feel like this slots in reasonably well in this thread vs. making its own. I'm just kind of amused myself...

Man practicing open carry law robbed of gun


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 8, 2014)

asher said:


> I feel like this slots in reasonably well in this thread vs. making its own. I'm just kind of amused myself...
> 
> Man practicing open carry law robbed of gun



I'm just going to say it: open carry is mostly for assholes. Anyone who feels the need to show off that they have a weapon in that way everywhere they go is just asking for trouble. Plus, it just reeks of "Look at how powerful and cool I am with my gun!", and his age backs that up.

No thanks. 

There are ways to carry firearms discreetly, yet still conveniently. The fact that the assailant was able to see the gun in detail makes me think that "Big Tex" here was showing off in an ornate or open holster. 

Add to the fact that the best the victim could do was describe the gun as "possibly semi-automatic, black gun". So pretty much every handgun made? 

Guys like these [the victim] make us, other American gun owners, look like idiots and assholes.

I will say, he did the right thing, surrendering the gun. It would likely have been a much more messy situation if he tried to pull it.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 8, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm just going to say it: open carry is mostly for assholes. Anyone who feels the need to show off that they have a weapon in that way everywhere they go is just asking for trouble. Plus, it just reeks of "Look at how powerful and cool I am with my gun!"
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> ...



I personally don't have any use for open carry in most cases. I prefer to blend in not stick out. If you are going to do it, you better be alert and you need to have some weapons retention training. That goes along with using a retention holster. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. But, just because you can, doesn't always mean you should. When I see morons that go to Starbucks or Target or wherever and do it just so they take a picture, it pisses me off. Some parts of the country are obviously more accepting of that type of thing and might not even think twice. However, there are quite a few places that open carry is legal, but would likely result in someone calling the police if they saw you doing so.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 8, 2014)

JD27 said:


> I personally don't have any use for open carry in most cases. I prefer to blend in not stick out. If you are going to do it, you better be alert and you need to have some weapons retention training. That goes along with using a retention holster. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. But, just because you can, doesn't always mean you should. When I see morons that go to Starbucks or Target or wherever and do it just so they take a picture, it pisses me off. Some parts of the country are obviously more accepting of that type of thing and might not even think twice. However, there are quite a few places that open carry is legal, but would likely result in someone calling the police if they saw you doing so.



When I lived in Arizona it was relatively common, open carry. It was weird at first (I'm not afraid of guns), but it became pretty ordinary after awhile. 

Fun fact: Of the dozens upon dozens of folks I saw doing it, they were all white men who appeared to be "better off" financially.

If what you want is a weapon for defense, letting everyone know you have it is the last thing you want to do. It just screams "I will fight back, take care of me first and decisively!"

I'd love to see some real statistics of how many times open carry made someone a target.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 8, 2014)

That's a place I wouldn't be shocked to see someone open carry. I wouldn't do it simply because I don't want to advertise me being armed one way or the other. It's bad enough with handguns, but when I see pictures and videos of people slinging an AR to go have some coffee, it aggravates the hell out of me.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 8, 2014)

Imho, this is fine if you're going to open carry.







This is what you do if you want to get shot because some one thinks you're going to shoot the place up.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 8, 2014)

BornToLooze said:


> Imho, this is fine if you're going to open carry.



We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because in my humble opinion, that lady is also an asshole. 

I'm not saying we should strip her of her rights, but anyone who open carries in public, running errands on the regular is an ass and worse further makes all folks who own firearms look like assholes. 

All that open carry broadcasts is "Hey, look at me, I have a gun!" which has the potential to open so many cans of worms. 

That's all my opinion though.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 8, 2014)

I keep a loaded 45-70 with 405 grain Remington express rounds in it (5), leaning up against the wall right next to my bed.

If somebody broke into my house, well, they'd be in a lot of pain. I wouldn't take the time to check if they're armed or not... I would assume they are.

Shoot first, call 911 next. Where I live, it would take over 25-30 minutes just for cops to get to me to begin with.


----------



## asher (Oct 8, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> I keep a loaded 45-70 with 405 grain Remington express rounds in it (5), leaning up against the wall right next to my bed.
> 
> If somebody broke into my house, well, they'd be in a lot of pain. I wouldn't take the time to check if they're armed or not... I would assume they are.
> 
> Shoot first, call 911 next. Where I live, it would take over 25-30 minutes just for cops to get to me to begin with.



I'd hope you'd at least try to identify them first:

Virginia sheriff's deputy shoots daughter sneaking back into house


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 8, 2014)

asher said:


> I'd hope you'd at least try to identify them first:
> 
> Virginia sheriff's deputy shoots daughter sneaking back into house



That's horrible. Damn.

But yeah, I agree, yes, I do have a voice. I can yell "WHO THE .... ARE YOU" before pulling a trigger.


----------



## asher (Oct 8, 2014)

But isn't that about the same time as it would take to determine if they were armed....? You can sneak some sort of "drop your gun" command in there too, I'm sure...


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 8, 2014)

As someone who sleeps with a gun by thier bed, if I had kids I would probably opt for a different plan of defense. 

I know my wife and my dogs well enough to know they're not intruders and if the wife is sneaking out on me I'd probably be gunning for her anyway!


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 8, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> As someone who sleeps with a gun by thier bed, if I had kids I would probably opt for a different plan of defense.



I think I would as well... but seeing as I live on my own with a dog... My plan of defense works pretty well like yours.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 8, 2014)

asher said:


> But isn't that about the same time as it would take to determine if they were armed....? You can sneak some sort of "drop your gun" command in there too, I'm sure...



I wouldn't be standing in front of an intruder asking them if they're armed or not, nor would they be within my sight. 
If I heard someone break my front door down, or a window, I'd hear my dog bark as well... I'd hide behind a wall, ask who they are, and come out with a my hammer cocked back and ready, firing pin ready to fire. 

I could yell drop your gun, or leave my house, or i'm armed drop your weapon, or some other form of command... but who's to say they would listen? Easier to be ready. 

Not that anybody's ready for a tragedy like that... but i'd rather ask questions later and know my dog and I are safe.

Also: Sorry for the double post, I forgot about the multiquote button. My apologies.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 8, 2014)

asher said:


> I'd hope you'd at least try to identify them first:
> 
> Virginia sheriff's deputy shoots daughter sneaking back into house





MaxOfMetal said:


> As someone who sleeps with a gun by thier bed, if I had kids I would probably opt for a different plan of defense.
> 
> I know my wife and my dogs well enough to know they're not intruders and if the wife is sneaking out on me I'd probably be gunning for her anyway!





ZeroTolerance94 said:


> I wouldn't be standing in front of an intruder asking them if they're armed or not, nor would they be within my sight.
> If I heard someone break my front door down, or a window, I'd hear my dog bark as well... I'd hide behind a wall, ask who they are, and come out with a my hammer cocked back and ready, firing pin ready to fire.
> 
> I could yell drop your gun, or leave my house, or i'm armed drop your weapon, or some other form of command... but who's to say they would listen? Easier to be ready.
> ...



See in this case, the father broke one of the primary rules of firearms safety. This applies to both target shooting and defensive shooting. 

*Know your target and what is beyond.
* Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 8, 2014)

JD27 said:


> See in this case, the father broke one of the primary rules of firearms safety. This applies to both target shooting and defensive shooting.
> 
> *Know your target and what is beyond.*



Luckily for me... beyond... woods woods and more woods. And nothing for at least 2-3 miles or so. 

I understand though, not every person can say the same thing.


----------



## JD27 (Oct 8, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Luckily for me... beyond... woods woods and more woods. And nothing for at least 2-3 miles or so.
> 
> I understand though, not every person can say the same thing.



Right, most importantly though, if you can't identify your target, don't shoot. That's why I have a light for those situations. Shooting blindly in the dark is how he ended up shooting his daughter.


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 8, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because in my humble opinion, that lady is also an asshole.



What I mean, is IF you are going to open carry that's how you should do it. She's well dressed and is using a decent holster. If you're going to be carrying a gun you need to be using quality gear, and if I was going to open carry, I would want a holster with some kind of retention device. Plus when you're open carrying, you're representing the gun community, so try to be dressed halfway decent. Not all tacticooled up like you're taking a break from Seal Team 6 or like you're wearing the same clothes you have been for the past week and have never heard of a shower. The way I look at it, if you're open carrying and your dressed decent and well groomed, someone who's on the fence about guns might look at that and think, "Maybe gun owners aren't as bad as the media says they are." Whereas if you look like you could be in a grunge band someone who's on the fence about gun would look at them and think, "Yep, ban guns." Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

But with open carry, there's a time and place for it. Max, I don't know about where you live, but where I live right now, even though open carry isn't legal I could go down to the store to get dinner and I bet nobody would bat an eye. Or if I'd been out in the woods all day I would. Now if we were going to Houston or something to have dinner, I would concealed carry. But in all honesty, this is probably as close as I would get to open carrying.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 8, 2014)

That's the thing, I get exactly what you mean, but I still think, and I'm going to say it again, if you open carry you're an asshole. Granted, those other fellows are bigger assholes and absolute idiots to boot. 

I live in Milwaukee, and Wisconsin in general is very open to guns. There's both open and concealed carry here. 

I would never do open carry though. There are enough bad neighborhoods in the county with some pretty real gang violence for me to bring that into the mix.


----------



## Mordacain (Oct 8, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's the thing, I get exactly what you mean, but I still think, and I'm going to say it again, if you open carry you're an asshole. Granted, those other fellows are bigger assholes and absolute idiots to boot.



 There is 0 reason to open carry. It doesn't make your response time any faster than a concealed holster so there is no performance benefit. The people I know that advocate for open carry wish to do so for intimidation factor, pure and simple. I know from experience that they are assholes about it too.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 8, 2014)

If I was a criminal, I'd be a strong advocate of open-carry laws. That way it'd be much easier to know who to take out first.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 8, 2014)

That and it makes 'see something, say something' that much harder because you don't exactly look like an innocent bystander when you're noticeably packing.

Everyone I know personally who advocates open carry does so for the *f*uck you aspect of doing so, usually in a political context. It certainly won't stop you from getting mugged any better than concealed carry. If the mugger gets the jump on you and isn't afraid to pull the trigger having a weapon isn't going to make a lick of a difference either way.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Oct 9, 2014)

wow its as if I walked into arfcom GD...


----------



## ghostred7 (Oct 9, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> There is 0 reason to open carry. It doesn't make your response time any faster than a concealed holster so there is no performance benefit. The people I know that advocate for open carry wish to do so for intimidation factor, pure and simple. I know from experience that they are assholes about it too.


I will respectfully disagree.

I saw a gentleman that had 1 hand on an oxygen set up he HAD to keep mobile with him at all times, which meant one hand always occupied. This was a frail, mid-40s gentleman that had obvious health issues. He OC'd and I talked to him about it. The bottom line is that in his situation, the amount of time it would take to pull whatever article of clothing out of the way in his condition would probably cause things to take too long and his obvious physical condition would make him a target anyway

Also, as for the "take them out first" things....there are also several times where crimes are outright stopped due simply to display. One such example happened right down the road from me and I can corroborate that this actually DID happen....it was on the local news and I knew one of the employees that worked there:
Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw - Atlanta gun rights | Examiner.com

Can we please stop the CC vs OC debate now? There are no 100% absolutes and no 100% right vs. wrong here. You can speculate they'll make better targets or are 0 reasons why someone should be OC, but there are as many counter points. Bottom line is that it boils down to an individual's rights and comfort level. I personally CC 95% of the time, but there are even times when I OC (mostly when hiking, hunting, etc where i'm going to be in Deliverance country & shit).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 9, 2014)

mr_rainmaker said:


> wow its as if I walked into arfcom GD...



Come now, it's not that bad. We're actually making fun of the tacticool morons who tote their ARs around. 



ghostred7 said:


> I will respectfully disagree.




Which is the best kind of disagreeing.  



> I saw a gentleman that had 1 hand on an oxygen set up he HAD to keep mobile with him at all times, which meant one hand always occupied. This was a frail, mid-40s gentleman that had obvious health issues. He OC'd and I talked to him about it. The bottom line is that in his situation, the amount of time it would take to pull whatever article of clothing out of the way in his condition would probably cause things to take too long and his obvious physical condition would make him a target anyway



I can't get behind this guy having a gun. If he's that frail he shouldn't be toting a firearm. Even something small is going to have recoil and if he doesn't have a solid grip who knows where a bullet will wind up. It's unfortunate that someone in his position has to consider being armed just to go throughout their day. 

If he can't move a shirt out of the way how is he going to stop an assailant from removing his weapon to begin with?

Someone like him would probably be a lot better off with a less than lethal self defense item. Well, maybe not him as much as the community around him. 



> Also, as for the "take them out first" things....there are also several times where crimes are outright stopped due simply to display. One such example happened right down the road from me and I can corroborate that this actually DID happen....it was on the local news and I knew one of the employees that worked there:
> Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw - Atlanta gun rights | Examiner.com



That's one of the very few arguments where open carry has some merit, and it's the main one that those in favor of open carry tout all over the place. 

I've seen statistics here and there about how much crime that actually stops, and it's all inconclusive on a large scale. 



> Can we please stop the CC vs OC debate now?



Why? Everyone is being civil, raising good points, and overall just discussing an issue pertinent to our own lives. It's less of a debate and more of an opinion share.



> There are no 100% absolutes and no 100% right vs. wrong here. You can speculate they'll make better targets or are 0 reasons why someone should be OC, but there are as many counter points. Bottom line is that it boils down to an individual's rights and comfort level.



True to some extant, but if the goal is less people injured or victimized, then there is a right or wrong. Opinion wise though, everyone is entitled and I've said everything on OC thus far with the notice that it's my opinion. :wavy:



> I personally CC 95% of the time, but there are even times when I OC (mostly when hiking, hunting, etc where i'm going to be in Deliverance country & shit).



We're not talking about OC when hunting or in the woods, we're talking about it in urban and suburban areas around the general public. 

Sorry, all I can picture is someone trying to CC with an ABII.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Oct 9, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Come now, it's not that bad. We're actually making fun of the tacticool morons who tote their ARs around.
> 
> 
> > yea you guys here are nice about it,THEY ARE MERCILESS....
> > OMG the funny photoshops and insults of OC morons are pretty priceless


----------



## ghostred7 (Oct 9, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Come now, it's not that bad. We're actually making fun of the tacticool morons who tote their ARs around.


FWIW...i don't agree with that either. It's legal and their right, which I support, but not a statement I can get behind. Doing that mess places more psychological disadvantage against than awareness for. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Which is the best kind of disagreeing.


Cheers  



MaxOfMetal said:


> I can't get behind this guy having a gun. If he's that frail he shouldn't be toting a firearm. Even something small is going to have recoil and if he doesn't have a solid grip who knows where a bullet will wind up. It's unfortunate that someone in his position has to consider being armed just to go throughout their day.
> 
> If he can't move a shirt out of the way how is he going to stop an assailant from removing his weapon to begin with?
> 
> Someone like him would probably be a lot better off with a less than lethal self defense item. Well, maybe not him as much as the community around him.


Take the frail thing with a grain of salt. That was my assessment over his build...nothing more. He said he maintained proficiency with his firearm, so I am assuming that means he can fire it and can use it. This was also in rural NC, so a "good old boy" walking around open carrying really doesn't register to most. He did say he had limited range of motion in his rotator cuff on his dominant arm. He carried at the 3 o'clock position because of this. Concealing at that location is not only difficult but also fights natural body geometry. He does conceal sometimes...it was just then he was OC b/c of range of motion. Having the need for oxygen wasn't in question...he had it, he needed it. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> That's one of the very few arguments where open carry has some merit, and it's the main one that those in favor of open carry tout all over the place.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> I've seen statistics here and there about how much crime that actually stops, and it's all inconclusive on a large scale.


I agree about the large scale thing. Even then though, i still believe there would be a larger ratio in favor of deterrent vs. target. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Why? Everyone is being civil, raising good points, and overall just discussing an issue pertinent to our own lives. It's less of a debate and more of an opinion share.


I was light-hearted sarcasm (just didn't put something kthxbai). Share away.



MaxOfMetal said:


> True to some extant, but if the goal is less people injured or victimized, then there is a right or wrong. Opinion wise though, everyone is entitled and I've said everything on OC thus far with the notice that it's my opinion. :wavy:


The right or wrong I was referring to was solely meant in reference to matter of carrying their firearm. Something legal should never be used as a grounds for someone crying victim. I grew up in the era/location where if you had long hair and smoking a cigarette someone would be scared of you and would call the police if you even looked their direction (happened to me several times). Someone calling themselves terrified/being a victim over seeing a law abiding citizen doing absolutely nothing wrong is part of them problem.



MaxOfMetal said:


> We're not talking about OC when hunting or in the woods, we're talking about it in urban and suburban areas around the general public.
> 
> Sorry, all I can picture is someone trying to CC with an ABII.


LOL...I want to see a picture of that. See previous statement in regards to "around the general public."


----------



## BornToLooze (Oct 9, 2014)

mr_rainmaker said:


> wow its as if I walked into arfcom GD...





MaxOfMetal said:


> if you open carry you're an asshole.



Well you know who's a bigger asshole? That AWOL deserting piece of shit Cory Jackshhhhhhhhhng.


----------



## DaltonH (Oct 9, 2014)

Underworld said:


> I am SO HAPPY right now to live in Canada



example of home invasion in Canada

guy breaks in, home owner asks him to leave, and he does


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 9, 2014)

I am totally for open carry laws, and unfortunately my state isn't an OC state... but sometimes I wish it was.

I am totally for it, where I live, for a reason not like other places... At least here in Florida, we get some crazy ass hurricanes...

...Hurricanes that can sometimes lead people to looting and other sometimes violent crimes that wouldn't normally happen outside of a natural disaster type of environment. If a hurricane came through my town like Andrew did to my dad's house, you'd best believe I'd be open carrying a rifle of some sort. 

Open carry is an intimidating thing to do, especially with longrifles, therefore in a natural disaster, to deter opportunistic criminals I would OC. It's probably the only time I would OC, me personally... if it was legal here in my state.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 9, 2014)

DaltonH said:


> example of home invasion in Canada
> 
> guy breaks in, home owner asks him to leave, and he does



More like guy breaks in, gets hit by hockey stick, homeowner apologizes, they laugh about it over timbits.


----------

