According to the Police Chief of Milwaukee, it’s reasonable to guess that the son was a drug dealer. Watch from about 30:40 to 31:01 in this video.
This whole “I needs an assault weapon with a big clip to shoot armed gangs invading my home” meme is just another in a long line of obfuscatory bullshit arguments promoted by gun fetishists to do anything but address a real problem with gun violence in this country.
I have the police report. I’d be willing to fax it to you, if you were willing to affirm publicly that everything I have claimed regarding my experience is true. Deal?
What is the real problem with gun violence in this country? Certainly you can’t think it’s AR15s? FWIW, think mostly the real problem with gun violence is poverty, and the illicit drug trade, and another assault weapon ban won’t fix either.
You’re right. In a nutshell, the problem is criminals. Disarming the law-abiding will have little effect on criminals, but it will have a substantial effect on the rest of us.
It’s like this: criminals won’t obey the will of the fearful, nervous voters who want safety and security via political dictate. These voters are willing to enforce their will on the law abiding citizen, as a second choice, because it at least allows them to exert power over those which which they disagree philosophically and politically.
Something like getting mad at a burly coworker, then beating up the kid in the mail room.
The meat of the debate is the endless comparisons of our enormous melting pot of a country with smaller, poorer, possibly more homogenous nations, which may enjoy fewer freedoms overall. We’re the gigantic apple, casting a monumental shadow over a gathering of various oranges, and the anti-2nd Amendment voters rally to compare apple to orange, as though the comparisons were valid in any sane way.
Where do criminals get their guns?
Agree wholeheartedly, except the gun nutters don’t go around trying to get stuff banned based upon those isolated incidents.
Where do they get their drugs? Where do they get their money?
I imagine that criminals get guns from:
Not in any sort of order.
There are hundreds of millions of legal guns in this country. Declaring them illegal will not make them go away. There are hundreds of thousands of already illegal guns in this country. They’ve already been declared illegal. Problem is, criminals are not inclined to obey laws.
An assault weapons ban should only be the start. We won’t see any significant benefit until after any all semi-automatic weapons w/large detachable clips cease to be manufactured for public use.
In addition, we should address the illegal drug trade, poverty, violent video games, and mental illness. In other words it’s a multifaceted problem that requires a multifaceted solution.
Personally, if I thought people of your ilk really gave a shit about the illicit drug trade, poverty and proper care for the mentally ill, I probably would not be very enthusiastic about a gun ban. Instead I think it’s all just noise in hopes that the public will lose interest in banning guns. Since it’s unlikely that there will every be any real push to address the problems of proper care for the mentally ill, the illicit drug trade and poverty I’d prefer that we at least get the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of everyone - from the criminally insane to the criminally clumsy to the impulsively suicidal.
So the slippery slope is the plan then? All the way to gun confiscation is it?
On the contrary. I think drugs should be legalized. That would get rid of the illicit trade instantly. All welfare recipients should be put on birth control, that would get rid of the poverty problems in a generation. Both in concert I think would do a lot more to lessen violence than any gun ban ever could.
I’m pro gun control, but I say if three men break in and are threatening your parents , shoot first.
I believe you’re missing something very important. If someone breaks into my house I’m not going to think of statistics and wonder if he’s armed or a threat to my family. I’m going to assume he is because that’s the best way to protect my family. I don’t think I owe the person breaking in much consideration.
No, no slope, a cliff. At its base is intelligence and reason in our nation’s gun control laws; based on the recognition that for every increment in killing performance we obtain from a gun, the far greater the costs outweigh the benefits.
Care to address the Milwaukee Police Chief’s statistics relative to the belief that innocent Americans are regularly having their home invaded by multiple robbers?
The Dad in the story was right, those kids knew the son and they wanted their drug money back.
Did you answer my question? You want confiscation of some or all guns eventually?
I read the thread, and I’m not sure why you are asking this.
First of all, no one really knows.
If you believe the criminals, you can go by this survey of prison inmates. In an earlier (think it was earlier) thread, I criticized use of this survey, because why should be believe a bunch of felons?
The answer may be private gun sales. Criminals claim, in the above link, that about 40 percent come from friends and family. Friends and family can charge money as well as a stranger can. In criminal subcultures, I’ll bet they do.
We need universal background checks for gun transfers. I hope there isn’t going to be a friends and family loophole to replace the current loophole which must not be named.
The idea that putting “welfare” recipients on birth control would end poverty is one of the dumber things I’ve read on here. You need to read about welfare reform. The idea that families get large amounts of money for welfare, and then live off of that money over generations was probably never true, but really really isn’t true now. The fact is, most people who use government assistance do or for a short period of time, and then return to being a taxpayer. Forcing recipients to go on birth control* would do nothing more that degrade the humanity of the people who need help. Which is the point, I suspect, but will NOTHING to reduce poverty.
*and how would that work? Would only the women need to go on birth control? What type of programs are subject to this? What about corporate welfare, or farm subsidies?
If someone breaks into your home, then defend yourself. I have said repeatedly that I support self defense. But you better be damn sure the person your shooting at is an invader. Do you disagree with that? Do you think its responsible to panic and fire off a gun into a dark room, at an unknown target? What about through a door? Do you think it might reduce accidental shootings if “responsible” gun owners verified what they were blasting away at before they pull the trigger? Or is the world just too scary? It might be a gang of thieves! Better get the AK and mow everything down! Woo hoo! SAFTEY
No deal because there’s no need. I’ll take you at your word as a Doper, regardless of my suspicions. I could mention how easy it is to fabricate a fax, but, deep down, I simply don’t care. Your experience is a single data point and, as such, is not particularly interesting. Sorry. 
In practice, yes, because the system makes it very difficult for an able-bodied man to get much assistance.
It’s not now politically possible, but I would like to see gun confiscation at the owner’s death.
The idea of leaving your gun to someone in your will is problematic in an era of universal background checks. And not only would the ultimate recipient need a background check, so would the executor.
The alternative is that guns get passed down generation after generation until passing into the hands of someone who definitely should not have it.
One advantage of my modest proposal – knowing that the government was going to get their guns should deter some suicides.
I didn’t say anything about large amounts of money and large families. I do think that people who can’t afford to raise their children will be very good parents and their kids more likely to become criminals. Also I talked of birth control, not sterilization, so anyone who was on welfare for a time would only be on birth control for that time. And no they wouldn’t be forced to go on birth control, they would volunteer for it at the same time they volunteered to get on welfare.
Female birth control seems to work, but as technology applies to the men I would most certainly have them take it too if they were to get a check. Directing at towards the board of directors to those on corporate welfare sounds good to me too. I’m not to familiar with farm subsidies so won’t comment.