Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MuddyPaws1, Apr 29, 2013.
Good thing he had his gun.
Things like this happen all the time, they rarely make headlines.
Anti-gun advocates believe that 911 saves lives and that's the solution to protecting your homes, the response time of my guns are a lot faster than the police.
I'll cling to my guns, my next purchase will be a Mossberg 500 Rolling thunder!
Out of curiosity, is there anything that this gun can do that the other guns you already own can't do? Are any of your current guns broken, and unfixable? I firmly believe that no human needs more than one good pistol, one good rifle, and one good shotgun to do EVERYTHING you could possibly want or need.
Anyone who has more is either collecting, or a sucker for the gun industry.
Guns are tools that never wear out. My grandmothers cast iron skillet will wear out about the same time as my rifle will. Why would I ever need another one?
How do planes crashing into buildings save lives?
My other shotgun is a break action single shot 12 guage. So I have been wanting a pump action for a while. This one has a Barrel Stabilizer with Picatinny Rail. So when shooting more than one round it will be more accurate and I can mount a light on the rail for use in the dark.
Not to mention the gun just looks badass.
Thanks, post has been edited didn't mean to put the "/" in there.
Unnecessary death, IMO.
Unnecessary home invasion, IMO.
Certainly. I agree, but I don't think that is justification to decide whether he lives or dies.
So what do you do? Sit back and let this guy kill you or your family first?
Gotcha. For a minute I thought there was an angle I wasn't aware of! Carry on.
What's to stop people buying a non-lethal weapon and reserving the firearm only as a last resort? The likelihood is you could incapacitate them more than long enough for a police officer to arrive, arrest them, and charge them later on. I know my view isn't popular with most Americans, however. It's their opinion if they'd prefer them dead in situations where that is avoidable, just like it's mine to ensure death is kept at a minimum.
Tazzer is single shot, so hopefully when someone enters your home he's the only one, otherwise pointless.
Death by shotgun ensures he won't break into my home or anyone else ever again. When you enter someone's (especially mine) home without permission you have to know there are risk involved.
I have a daughter and a pregnant wife, their safety is my first concerned.....Not the safety of the uninvited.
Guns are not as effective for self defense as proponents think:
Incapacitate with what? Chloroform? some other anaesthesia? Rope? Those mean up close and personal and physically overcoming the aggressor. Something many may not have the ability to do. A firearm evens tips the balance for the victim.
He came in and hit a 70 year old woman in the head with a board. Can't say that I feel sorry for the guy.
If they break in to your house and you incapacitate them but don't kill them, they're going to sue you and they're going to win.
So, if you're going to act in self defense, and live in a state with the castle doctrine, then you better shoot to kill.
If a scumbag doesn't want to get shot and killed, he shouldn't be breaking into someone's house.
Tasers are not single shot. You can buy tasers with multiple back up shots. Also, if there are multiple people trying to harm you, then I agree, you should do everything reasonable to protect your family (perhaps instead of killing them you could shoot them in leg, or something, I don't know - home invasions are not common here). However, my post was referring to this specific case being one intruder.
There are many types of non-lethal weapons. Tasers are probably the most prevalent. Many others don't require contact, either. You're also forgetting that this article specifically mentions that the intruder wrestled with the gun owner; who's to say that this couldn't have gone the other way, with the intruder stealing the firearm and killing the elderly couple? If anything I would argue the firearm doesn't tip the balance either way.
I have no sympathy for him, either. I just think his death could have been prevented and could have then went through the justice system like every criminal IMO should.
Sounds like a problem with crummy laws that encourage you to kill intruders, not the use of non-lethal weapons.
True. But what happens next?
Scumbags everywhere repent and come to Jesus? Or...
They get themselves a gun and shoot first? Without warning. In the back.
Bearing in mind they're scumbags, which seems more likely?
Nor are they here. But by the way the media hyperventilates whenever one happens, you'd think they happened everywhere, all the time.
I haven't seen ones that shoot more than one, but either way last I checked they were/are illegal in NY.
Shoot him in the leg? Why so he can sue me? Maybe come back for revenge?
I'd rather see him die.
I agree with you up until the guy hit a 70 year old woman in the head with a club. At that point, I think the victims of the break-in have every right to be afraid for their lives and to defend themselves.
The only way his death could have been prevented is if he didn't break in and assault a 70 year old woman with a deadly weapon.
That's a nice looking gun. Be a good one in stainless for boat use.
That's your opinion...and it's very wrong. Might suit you well, but it's certainly not based in reality. Different people have different needs.
You are right. If he would have had a job then he wouldn't be robbing people. Take it up with Obama. Until then, they get what happens to them.
This always pops up and then there is a survey or study posting war that starts. There are just as many studies that say you are safer as the ones that say you aren't. Holes can be poked in both sides. Almost all the studies were backed by someone with an agenda to provide "proof" supporting their position.
I'm safer. Don't believe it? Come over and break into my house and we'll see who walks away.
The great conservative state that I live in has a law disallowing people who are injured while committing a crime from suing. It's also a castle state. I also don't believe in shooting to injure.
Yep, another liberal organization that is twisting statistics and manipulating surveys and then posting the results that they want the masses to believe.
Let's back the bus up here for a second. Tasers that fire a projectile with wires are not legal fo public in almost all states. In most states a contact taser is illegal to own. Most states require you to have a CPL to have a taser where legal.
I think they are more likely to come visit you or some other unarmed person.
If someone is breaking into your house late at night while you're home, chances are good they're either crazy or desperate. If you ever find yourself in a situation where it's either you or him, the last thing you're going to be thinking about are the societal implications of your decision. You're gonna be aiming in his general directions and pulling the trigger in an attempt to save your own life.
And no, I'm not saying all criminals are crazy or desperate. It's just that a burglar with even a quarter of an ounce of common sense is going to wait until a house is unoccupied before they rob the place. If they're breaking in without any regard to you being there or not, then they probably think they have nothing to lose, and are likely willing to go to greater lengths than your average burglar.
How do they tell?