As per the title of this thread, No Big Fuckin’ Loss Here in today’s Stupid Gun News..
Grateful I am that he didn’t decide in his 2nd Amendment Rightous-assed Mindset™ to show his girlfriend the proper and safe handling of his firearms by pressing the barrel against her head.
He aimed his gun in the right direction.
Ha, beat me to it. As someone on another forum said, he did demonstrate gun safety - by demonstrating exactly what not to do with guns.
I’m pledging The Humungus.
Psst… post #3962…
Why wouldn’t there already be a round in the chamber?
My 1911 has pretty much every proven safety device known to man. Trigger safety, thumb safety, grip safety, drop safety, loaded chamber indicator, and probably something else that I’m forgetting.
So? It still happens right? You get a defendant thats the wrong color that accidentally shot and killed a sympathic victim (e.g. pretty young white 4 year old girl) and is it impossible?
Its just that you seem rational in other respects.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Statutory rape is about the only situation I can think of where impose a harsh criminal penalty despite lack of intent or criminal negligence.
Not really sure how this risks life and limb (are you saying this is incitement to violence? Cuz we already have that covered). I don’t know any ranges around here that tolerate this sort of shit but YMMV.
Keeping every gun in the safe is not necessary for gun safety and a requirment to put all your guns in a safe would be unconstitutional. These guys don’t know what they are talking about, they don’t have to keep their guns in a safe.
So they talk about how they keep a gun someplace that is accessible to their kids but rely on their kids not touching them? Yeah, we have laws for that too.
Not really sure how this is unsafe. Illegal, sure, but why is it unsafe?
Its all bluster. You see guys say this sort of shit on youtube and then the state comes along and takes aay all their guns because theya re deemed a risk to public safety. What do they do? They hand over their guns and make a lot of apologies on youtube talking about how they were jsut venting in the heat of the moment, etc. And frankly, I know some gun nerds that look for the perfect carry ammo and are willing to pay $almost infinity/round for a magic bullet.
NO, I think stupid gun news is the right place for it. I understand the objection Rand has to health officials treating guns like disease vectors but slanted reports that make unsupported conclusions will just undermine their credibility and we could use more data (not opinions) on gun violence.
You are not, I hope, suggesting that outcome is a desirable one. Even the outcome where they get away with their loot would be more desirable so long as none of the homeowners get hurt.
Yes, the outcome is not a desirable one. At least one of the intruders survived.
You are not, I hope, suggesting that, when your home is invaded, one should wait to ascertain the intentions of the criminals before shooting them?
One [URL=“http://www.wtop.com/41/3554455/Moneta-man-shot-after-being-mistaken-for-intruder”]would hope so.
But I’ve long suspected that the ‘shoot first’ crowd own penis extensions mainly because they’re petrified little people, scared of everyone and everything around them. I imagine it can’t be much fun, having to live your entire life in fear. Enjoy your little corner of paranoia.
Meh, collateral damage. Sometimes shit happens.
Depends on how unsafe you’re willing to be and still claim it’s safety, huh? Also, your claim about constitutionality is not supported by the unchallenged existence of numerous local safe-storage laws. Which law abiding citizens abide by, btw.
If you’re going to dismiss the study so easily, you’ll need to provide some explanation for *why *it’s slanted and unsupported, other than that you simply don’t like the factual conclusions. If you’re going to condemn slanted opinionizing, you need not to practice it yourself in the very same sentence, sicko.
Certainly one should at least wait to ascertain that they are armed before shooting them.
I think he said intentions not identity. I did not see any indication that there was any doubt about the identity of the criminals.
In Heller, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
If you are talking about the various laws that require you to secure your weapons if there are children in the house and you are not around. I don’t see why there would be a constitutional problem with that. But requiring that all guns always be locked at all times would be unconstitutional.
What study? I was talking about a hypothetical prospective study that this guy might issue if he gets confirmed. I said that any slanted study would undermine credibility.
Try to read gooderer.:rolleyes:
“I don’t know this person on my doorstep. Fire away!”
I didn’t get the impression that these people were standing on the doorstep.
Would that make a difference?
I think it should, assuming we’re not being snarky here.
In my opinion a legitimate breaking and entering is approximately the only situation where I (as a gun rights advocate) am willing to allow any kind of “shoot first” legal condition.
At the point when someone has already evinced SOME willingness to perform physically violent or violative actions to my property, possibly trapping me or my kid (depending on layout and point of entry) inside with no easy avenue of safe escape? Yeah, at that point, I feel like I’m justified in taking a shot at an unknown person inside my own home.
I’m apparently one of the strictest pro-gun dopers about this, though–I hate generic “stand your ground” laws (as adding nothing to legitimate self-defense claims) and I don’t believe Castle Doctrine laws should apply to mere property or cases of trespass, only to a specific enclosed dwelling you control AND are currently occupying–as in, not in your yard and not on your doorstep, inside the actual house. I’d be willing to compromise it down to also requiring the intruder to enter the house without permission AND display some form of hostile intent (so I am not absolved if, for example, my neighbor opens my unlocked front door and shouts “Hello?” and I blow his head off).
Of course, the most desirable outcome of a home invasion, and the one the police always aim for, is one where the intruders go away handcuffed but unharmed.
The next most desirable is one where the intruders get away, but empty-handed and without anyone getting hurt.
The next most desirable is, again, one where they get away with their loot, and without anyone getting hurt.
Any outcome where anyone, intruder or homeowner, gets hurt is less desirable than any of the above.
Agreed?
And then, proceed like the Quaker who caught a burglar in his kitchen.
[click-click]
“Friend, I mean thee no harm, but thee are standing where I mean to shoot!”