-
Why are we quibbling about whether the guy was a “disaster relief worker” or not? It’s a stupid point. And a relatively benign story - “guy accidentally breaks law which is different than in his home state in way that harms no one, is briefly punished but it all gets sorted out”. I’m not complaining.
-
To me the “good news” in the other story in the OP is that the customer who shot the robber didn’t accidentally shoot someone else in the process. I’m glad it all turned out well, but I’m not a fan of encouraging vigilantism.
-
I note at least two stories where a person’s gun is taken away from them and used against them. I could have sworn we were told elsewhere that this hardly ever happens?
-
I see Starving Artist is picking fights with imaginary liberals again. So sad.
If it’s affecting your mental health and well being, or how you are feeling, perhaps this thread is isn’t for you.
It is a tragedy when someone has to defend themselves by shooting someone - but that is from the perspective of the the shooter - it’s a tragedy for the person defending them self. When a person defends them self by killing their attacker, it’s unfortunate for the attacker that they are dead, but I wouldn’t call that tragic. More like an expected outcome of poor choices. It’s a tragedy that an innocent would have to go through the ordeal and experience of having to defend them self.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that losing a firearm in an altercation never happens - of course it happens. In a general sense, when law abiding folks including police defend themselves, it’s bad if they lose their weapons. When aggressors lose their weapons in the commission of a crime and have it used against them that’s good.
My conjecture is that people trained with firearms are less likely to lose their weapons while defending themselves as compared to poorly trained or disciplined criminals losing their weapons while committing a crime. I would say that law abiding folks losing their weapons while defending themselves wouldn’t fit the subject matter of the thread however.
And in other news, Police: Elderly man shoots robbery suspect who pointed a gun at his wife
A 27 year old person with experience in the criminal justice system vs a 75 year old couple. As a force multiplier, the firearm is probably the only reason this turned out okay for the couple.
Excellent point.
Sounds to me like you’re ignorant of liberal efforts to make gathering evidence as difficult as possible and to lessen prison sentences and lobby for early parole. I’ve seen some of the board’s liberals speak proudly of their successes in these areas on this very board.
And of course we have the examples of Great Britton, where crimes we consider heinous routinely draw minimal prison terms and early release (barring politically incorrect crimes, that is, for which harsh sentencing predictably has become the norm), and of countries like Sweden and Norway, where being sentenced to prison is like living in a nice hotel or on a college campus.
If you’re a victim, conservatives are your friend. If you’re a criminal, liberals are your friend.
What’s sad is that you’re ignorant of this propensity on the part of your ideological brethren.
And before anyone brings up my misspelling of Great Brittain, I plead force of habit. Some years back I worked for a company with Britton in the name and got used to spelling it that way. Mea culpa.
Can you give us an example of where this actually happened?
Guns are designed to kill – after all we must not point a gun at anyone we do not want to die. So given that most gun killings are suicide I’d say suicide by gun is about as positive as you can get about these tools. Most of the time that people fire them effectively it is to kill themselves (what is it, to the rate of 2 a day? Not sure off top of my head… thinking United States stats here). Sure, defending yourself against a threat is great, but let’s face it the main REAL use of a gun against a human is for suicide – that is just a statistical fact. So let’s celebrate the two or whatever folks a day who use this tool to kill themselves. And, hey, let’s celebrate that their guns made them feel safe before they ended their lives. Having a gun but not using it gives a chance to feel safe, and once you’re ready for the suicide and you finally find a good reason to use it for real – what is not to love? It gave you comfort until now when it is a convenient tool to end your life. Sounds like win/win to me. Get a gun, feel good about it as long as you need, and then remove yourself from our population in one of the more easy and pain free methods possible.
To sum it up, I guess I think the best gun news of the day is when gun owners kill themselves. Guns are very good tools for that and I am always happy to see folks do things using the best tools possible.
Praising people committing suicide…stay classy!
In other news, Elderly man shoots suspected burglar inside home (audio plays from news story)
Just another day in AZ.
October figures for the FBI NICS, (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), show a continuing trend of record breaking sales. Numbers for October 2015 were just released. Another 1.9 million background checks.
Of course the disclaimer at the bottom of the chart reminds us that these background checks do not translate into direct sales numbers, but most felons and others who know that they cannot purchase a gun don’t apply to buy. Some small subset of these checks are refused sales of the gun for various reasons. But they are still the best figures we have to estimate actual sales.
17 and a half million checks so far this year and we are just now entering the holiday shopping season. Regardless of how it is usually portrayed in the media, these can’t be just the “gun nuts” buying 20 million guns each year.
Anti-gun types always point to the Australian buy back program as a model for the future of gun control in the US. This chart shows why that idea is ridiculous when applied to the US. The Australian buy-back took in about a week’s worth of US gun sales, maybe. And many of those poorly armed Australians simply replaced their illegal gun with a more acceptable version.
Every time a pimple-faced mentally ill loser shoots up a school, another million guns are sold. Every time the current or presumed future president goes on TV to say something must be done, another 12 million are sold.
The Europeans, Australians, and other posters on this board really should take a long look at the numbers on the FBI chart to understand why the gun buy-back idea, or any kind of confiscation plan will simply not work in the US.
Who are these people who are buying all these guns? Answer, not the gun nuts. Normal people with concerns. Hunting game did not somehow become more popular, wild animals did not overtake the cities.
I leave it up to the individual to wonder what is going on.
I just checked, albeit not exhaustively. Not a single gun homicide in Australia today. Seems pretty positive to me. Too bad that America can’t do anything about her little problem. Sure, she won two world wars and put a man on the moon, but I guess reasonable gun control laws are just too darn hard to enact, even when it’s what the majority wants.
Ah, I see the problem. I failed to factor your unique view of the universe. Attempting to fix the massive clusterfuck that is the US penal system, with its policies (mostly Republican-driven) that result is ludicrously disproportionate penalties for minor crimes leading to unsustainable prison overcrowding is not evidence of a “lack of concern for the victims of crime”, which was your original claim. Liberals are interested in justice. You appear to be interested only in punishment.
Also, of course, conservative claims to be concerned with the victims of crime tend to run into a brick wall when the crime in question is rape.
They do have pretty reasonable gun control laws, actually - what’s different is the way guns are viewed there vs elsewhere.
In the US, a gun is mainly a symbol of many things, from the ownership of your home to the Constitution and the rights enshrined in it. In other countries, they tend to be viewed as a dangerous tool. But when you look at the laws in the US, they actually have checks that are very similar to those of other countries - the difference is that in other countries nobody would think of buying a gun because we have the right to.
Kind of a mixed bag on this one:
A senior citizen turned the tables during a home invasion
Unfortunately, the person that police picked up quickly eluded them:
So, a guy breaks into someone’s house armed with a knife, the elderly homeowner subdues him at gun point (that’s the positive news), then the police detain the person, take him to a hospital, then the guy simply checks himself out.
A nosy liberal in Colorado tried to call the police just because her neighbor was outside with his rifle. She was informed by the 911 operator that the neighbor was in his rights to carry a gun and that they had a little thing called freedom in the Centennial State.
But you know liberals, they just have to have the last word:
Noah Harpham Neighbor Called 911 Before Colorado Shooting Spree, Was Told Open Carry Is Legal
That’s a bad outcome, but I’m not sure why you felt the need to embellish the story. There is no mention of the 911 operator responding sarcastically or about freedom in the Centennial State.
In other news, 72-year-old man tied up in home invasion gets free, grabs gun
Another DGU with no shots fired.
Man shot to death after attacking ex-girlfriend in violent home invasion
The only negative here is that the resident wasn’t able to stop the intruder before he choked out the woman who was there.
I brought it up because it was an outright lie that falsely portrayed a gun owner as a heroic figure of sorts. I agree it had nothing to do with the meat of the story, but the writer used it to glorify him. It was pure propaganda that Bone accepted at face value, and defended, just because it involved a gun owner.
The same thing happened in the Stupid Gun News thread when Lumpy posted a story about a guy who had been robbed several times and finally got a gun and shot the next intruder. It turned out that he hadn’t bothered securing his apartment properly, but that didn’t matter to Lumpy. All that mattered was that he shot an intruder. I think it’s worth pointing out that they’re blindly accepting these stories just because they involve guns.
Except for the fact that you are wrong about the characterization, spot on! You admitted this when you incorrectly characterized the person in the story as a “disaster relief worker” in post #25:
You are the one who repeatedly mistakenly called him a “disaster relief worker”. Keep clinging to the idea that involving FEMA, the Office of Emergency Management, and the State Police (as I mentioned n post #35) constitutes no actual disaster!
And in other news,Police Say Robbery Suspect Shot In Jaw:
Shot in the jaw and still functioning. People are resilient.
And you can cling to whatever idea you want. I’m not gonna keep arguing with a fencepost.