-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Mother of three shoots intruder...
- Thread starter F34R
- Start date
You forgot the most important thing: those countries have way fewer guns. They don't arm police because there isn't a worry police could get shot in literally every encounter.
I'm all for disarming police, but that can't happen unless theres a less insane ammount of guns in circulation.
I can accept your argument here and I'm okay with your line of thinking. But no way in hell am I gonna take a chance with a guy breaking my door down.
well the general public is more at risk from armed cops than vice versa so i'm all for disarming the police before anyone else
I'm truly shocked that you have your post history set to private.
I could win the lottery 5 times in a row with the same numbers before that happens. And I'm against that, many reasons for peeps to own guns. just responsible laws is whats needed.
This is getting a bit off-topic but I'm not sure why the 'gun ban' groups are still a thing. This is America, bans don't work. Prohibition didn't work, the War on Drugs isn't working. What does work is incentivizing and taxation. States that are legalizing marijuana are making huge profits in tax revenue.
Both federal and local governments should be pushing for responsible ownership and offer aid to people willing to teach proper handling and marksmanship courses.
Both federal and local governments should be pushing for responsible ownership and offer aid to people willing to teach proper handling and marksmanship courses.
Illegal booze and drugs are a lot easier to make than illegal AR-15s.
I like that it lead to a positive outcome. I hate that people will use it to ignore the very clear statistics that she was more likely to kill one of those kids.
Personally, I think the risk incurred through allowing the intruder is wholly unacceptable regardless of the probable intent when considering worst possible outcomes.
You might be willing to take that risk, I in the same situation wouldn't. Escalation could happen for a number of reasons, a firearm being present being only one of them.
And even with that, gambling is a foolish risk. Probability has never saved anyone who has faced "unlikely" murderous or harmfull intent.
I was a bit lost as to why he was charged with Burglary in the first degree, so I looked up SC law:
A person is guilty of Burglary in the first degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and either:
(1) when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight, he or another participant in the crime:
(a) is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or
(b) causes physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(c) uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or
(d) displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or
(2) the Burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for Burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or
(3) the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.
(B) Burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, "life" means until death. The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than fifteen years.
I guess it's 'cause it happened at night? I don't know the guy's legal history.
In any case, buddy is looking at some serious jail time.
A person is guilty of Burglary in the first degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and either:
(1) when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight, he or another participant in the crime:
(a) is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or
(b) causes physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(c) uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or
(d) displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or
(2) the Burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for Burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or
(3) the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.
(B) Burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, "life" means until death. The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than fifteen years.
I guess it's 'cause it happened at night? I don't know the guy's legal history.
In any case, buddy is looking at some serious jail time.
Why is the risk of not owning a gun acceptable to you when it's the lower risk? You're gambling either way, why not maximise your odds?
The commonality of gun ownership and number of deaths in the US suggests I'm pretty safe if I treat the weapon responsibly.
The gamble on a criminals immediate disposition on the other hand...
Hahahahaha. Oh man, I'm so glad I don't live in a world run by Era members.
You're glad you don't live in a gun-free society? Eh, okay. I'm extremely glad I do, personally.
Sure the example in that post is kinda hyperbolic but there are vast differences in how crimes are perpetrated between countries where guns are rare and countries where guns are ubiquitous. It's not only home-owners that are emboldened by owning guns, it equally applies to criminals as well. The end result is more fear and more deaths no matter how you look at it.
Well, good that she was successful. However, I think I read somewhere that more often than not, if the homeowner has a gun in these situations, it usually ends up getting turned against them. I'll try to check for that a bit later and edit this post with whatever I find; I could be mistaken.
That said, I do have a gun in the house, but I live in a neighborhood where the chances of a home invasion happening are next to zero. Most people don't even know my development exists, as it's on the outskirts of town near the woods. And anyone who did know about it would know that most people around here have either a big ass dog, or a gun, or both.
That said, I do have a gun in the house, but I live in a neighborhood where the chances of a home invasion happening are next to zero. Most people don't even know my development exists, as it's on the outskirts of town near the woods. And anyone who did know about it would know that most people around here have either a big ass dog, or a gun, or both.
They are separate questions. Even with a high prevalence of guns, Disarming cops might be in public interest of outcomes improve.
Guns are not the great equalizer. They're the great escalator.
I don't think you understand how statistics work. You were already explained what's lower risk.
I want a gun free society, I also want many things but that's not what my reply was for.
I refuse to accept just letting someone into my house to take whatever, "even help them out" and then call my insurance afterwards. That is such a tone deaf response on so many levels.
I wouldn't just let them in. They broke the door down. I would call the police. And "helping out" is just implying I would do whatever to speed the situation along while minimizing risk to me and my family.
If you have stats that show this isn't, overall, the safest approach, I'd love to see them.
You refuse? So what would you do otherwise?
Not sure, but I know you can buy security doors.
Not really, it tries to emphasize a strategy of de-escalation over escalation. It doesn't literally mean you're going to help out an attempted burglary, just that you do whatever is necessary to minimize risk to yourself and family. It doesn't have to end in people dying.
OP
OP
There's nothing wrong with owning guns. We do need sensible gun laws though. Which is the rational argument anyone has been making. It seems like she took all the precautions and training before owning a gun. And this is the situation which called for it to be used.
I say this as a black man I'm all for us that want guns to get them legally and do all the proper training if only to defend ourselves AND push for tougher gun laws. These are special times. Hell we have a topic on this very forum where law enforcement hasn't done their job to combat white terrorism. If the law fails we can only defend ourselves at that point.
I say this as a black man I'm all for us that want guns to get them legally and do all the proper training if only to defend ourselves AND push for tougher gun laws. These are special times. Hell we have a topic on this very forum where law enforcement hasn't done their job to combat white terrorism. If the law fails we can only defend ourselves at that point.
Minorities and especially women should have solid access to firearms. Even 'felons' if they are historically nonviolent and have no history of serious mental illness. So many black men have been screwed with the 'felon' label for nonviolent drug offenses since the bogus drug war began that it's economic and cultural genocide. Take all of those people, strip their voting rights, rip their families apart, and their communities suffer from even greater abuse by police abuses in that fundamentally racist policy.
The media is also complicit in skewing the reality our country faces in regards to firearms and danger. Despite the news coverage focusing on flashier events, actual statistics show that the vast VAST majority of firearms murders are single perp, single victim, using a pistol. Further, this is dramatically more common in economically disadvantaged areas, not coincidentally areas where terrible institutional racism and the drug war have combined to create an environment rife with completely rational fear of the police as well as few opportunities to earn reasonable income legally.
Ending the drug war, and refocusing those resources towards improving life for the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of our country would be the single most effective way of reducing gun murders in terms of saving lives.
In the meantime, AR ban or no ban, 10 round mag or 30 round mag, these things would not amount to very much in the big picture. The more effective options would be increasing waiting periods for males under 25 years old, and comprehensive mental health checks (outright ban on anyone with even misdemeanor violent conviction, schizophrenia, BPD, etc). Mandatory smart safe for home/business, tax incentives for providing smart user recognition for taking off safety.
A happier, less racist, more equitable society is less violent.
The materials dont hold up to the heat of firing s weapon yet. They can shoot a few rounds now and that's about it before they break down. That is changing tho
Can you currently print an entire fully functional AR-15? No. You don't need to.
The only part you would need to print is the lower reciever ( The part the government considers a firearm). Then you are free to purchase all the other parts with no background check as they are not regulated. Use your Google fingers to look at the numerous examples of this being done. If you have $1500 you can buy a machine that will take your printed lower and mill them to be fully functional with little to no technical knowledge.
This is not new and is only getting better over time. Cost is a constraint currently but it is it easier to do this than 6 years ago? Absolutely.
But no it's not as easy as downloading assaultrifle.pdf and 20 minutes later you're ready to hit the range.
Do you actually have a statistic for chance of harm during a home invasion while your present vs not being harmed in the same scenario?
Or are you discounting the ability to minimize risk factors actually under your controll.
Statistics are for overall gun ownership . Not just during invasions. Accidents and other incidents happen outside of that time window.
How do you know he wasn't there to take possessions? Lots of burglaries, very very few burglarly homicides.
Considering the low number of burglary homicides, reducing risk of bodily harm during an invasion by use of firearm is an absurd concept, definitely not justifying the other associated risks. The illusion of control gun advocates have is staggering.
Doesn't come across that way. Literally kicking someones door down when the woman who has children there is telling him to stop and that she has a gun. Most people run off if someone is inside or announces they have a firearm.
Also, why are people A O.K. with having someone kick down their door and having their shit taken in front of them? lol
A big thing I hear from pro-gun people is the assertion that gun control people want to deprive you your ability to defend yourself, and your property. I'll be honest, I saw your posts Nicktals, and I had to blink at you saying things like "Let them steal". Regardless of statistics, most people aren't particularly inclined for being told essentially to just take getting fucked lying down.
Plenty of decent countries out there not run by mental gun nuts, which then achieve to have much less gun violence. You should check out one of those countries sometime.
As far as we know, the assailant was unarmed, had a female accomplice, and knocked on someone else's door that morning before this one. That's really all we know, coupled with the overwhelming majority of home invasions not involving bodily harm.
And chippy, I'd rather get fucked laying down than killed standing lol.
Also, I previously said she was a model gun owner, but just noticed she didn't have the gun in a safe, and it's unclear what safety measures she had in place for her gun in a house of 3 kids.