Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

The scenario as it was unrealistically presented is that of bad guys knocking down the door and securing the entire residence before the good guys have time to grab a gun.

That's an unlikely scenario?

Seems pretty damn plausible to me.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Really? You don't understand the point? Alarms and better locks buy you time. You can use that time to do a couple things. Wait for the police to come and save you, or defend yourself.

Unless you have a stash of drugs or cash and are in fear of being attacked by rival drug gangs it's pretty unlikely that criminals will fail to be deterred by locks and alarms. Of course it is possible you will fall victim to a home invasion if you have high end cars or expensive jewellery but even then having better locks, an alarm, maybe a dog and a cell phone is going to protect you far more surely than exiting your house with a gun in hand and challenging the intruders on your driveway.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

No, you are lying to yourself and to everyone else on this forum.

In EVERY SINGLE ONE of the instances you bring up, the bad guys "upper hand" is reduced if I have a gun.

Next time, try answering the question.

I did answer the question. It ----> DEPENDS <-----


If you're sleeping and your guns are locked in their safe - as should be the case with responsible owners - you're screwed.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

That's an unlikely scenario?

Seems pretty damn plausible to me.

As I brought up originally....

Citation needed.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

As I brought up originally....

Citation needed.

You need a citation that says the person breaking into your house is more prepared for the event than you?

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

I did answer the question. It ----> DEPENDS <-----


If you're sleeping and your guns are locked in their safe - as should be the case with responsible owners - you're screwed.

No, it does not depend. Even in the cases where you want to reduce the possibility of one accessing their firearm to an infinitesimally small number, that number is still greater than zero.

Therefore, as has been shown. In all circumstances, the bad guys advantage is reduced if the good guy has a gun.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by WildCat

He looks "brown" to you?

Why do you have to add a racial component to it? Wasn't juicy enough as it was?

I think the point is that if the victim had been a non-minority, he might still be alive. Not sure it's true, but that's what I glean from the post.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

You need a citation that says the person breaking into your house is more prepared for the event than you?

No, it is pretty clear that the citation required is that the bad guys will be able to do their business before the good guys have time to react.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

No, it does not depend. Even in the cases where you want to reduce the possibility of one accessing their firearm to an infinitesimally small number, that number is still greater than zero.

Therefore, as has been shown. In all circumstances, the bad guys advantage is reduced if the good guy has a gun.

So you're just trolling.

Fine.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Will their advantage be less, if I do or don't have a gun?

According to most credible sources you are more likely to kill yourself or another family member with the gun than defend yourself with it. What is their advantage while you are attending a funeral?

In other words, why limit yourself to the time frame between breaking in and contact, look at the lifetime ownership of the gun. Do you only plan on owning a gun during that time frame that is highly unlikely to ever occur? The NRA would be broke if that were possible.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A Venn diagram that includes YOU.

A Venn diagram in which YOU are the hero !

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

No, it is pretty clear that the citation required is that the bad guys will be able to do their business before the good guys have time to react.

What the hell do you think they're going to do? Yell "GET ON THE FLOOR!, but after you unlock your safe and load your gun so we're all even and stuff"???

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

..., maybe a dog and a cell phone is going to protect you far more surely than exiting your house with a gun in hand and challenging the intruders on your driveway.

In terms of exiting the home, you are correct.

Dogs are great, even small dogs. They give you time to react.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

The racial component is a red herring. The fact that this guy was paranoid enough to pull a gun and start firing without even attempting to TALK to the people in his driveway is bad enough. People aren't naturally that paranoid and fearful. Random home invasions are nowhere near frequent enough to justify even his warning shot.

Yes.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

You made the statement that the windows were rolled up. I pointed out that the information we have so far explicitly stated the contrary.

Why are you evading that?

Yes, I have seen his photo. It is in this article found through the OP link.

I don't know about "brown", but he could certainly be described as "Latino" or "Hispanic" in appearance, something which people who are prone to think in (negative) stereotypes often view as synonymous with "brown", even if they are unwilling to admit as much when asked directly.

More importantly he would sound like he was, since he had apparently only been in this country for a few months.

So it's your contention that Sailor shot just because he heard his accent, or because he can tell a Colombian from an Italian from a Greek from an Arab from a Jew from a Frenchman from a Brit etc etc etc?

Or are you just trying to shoehorn a racial element into this when there's no evidence it's the case?

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

According to most credible sources..

You should look into that statistic. It's been addressed in other threads. Forgive me, but I don't have the time to go through that with you right now.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

...you are more likely to kill yourself or another family member with the gun than defend yourself with it. ...

We are discussing a certain specific scenario.

[remirol]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

So you're just trolling.

It took you this long to realize that?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by remirol

It took you this long to realize that?

Stupid flu bug is coming back. I'm not as quick as normal.

Maybe I should shoot it.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

What the hell do you think they're going to do? Yell "GET ON THE FLOOR!, but after you unlock your safe and load your gun so we're all even and stuff"???

I don't sleep and keep my safe right next to my outside door. Do you? I live in a dwelling that has individual, separate rooms.

I do agree that if I lived in some sort of communal hut, the scenario you mention could be problematic.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I think the point is, if the windows were rolled down to speak to Sailor, they were then up when they pulled into the driveway. It's just a argument against the racism charge; basically, when he ran outside to confront them, the windows were up so it's likely that he couldn't, at that point, determine the race of the individuals in the car. That's how I was reading it, anyway, I could be wrong.

You are correct.

And at that point he already had his gun out and had fired a warning shot. I really don't see how race was an issue in this case, as opposed to paranoid stupidity.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

I don't sleep and keep my safe right next to my outside door. Do you? I live in a dwelling that has individual, separate rooms.

I do agree that if I lived in some sort of communal hut, the scenario you mention could be problematic.

So now you're just lying.

Troll. Goodbye.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

What are numbers gun deaths/injuries in the US?

How many are:
-murders
-accidental shootings like the OP
-suicides
-accidents
-children playing with guns
-etc

There is so much debate on this subject, but i've never seen what behaviour with guns is causing the most problems.

Mostly gangbangers shooting each other with handguns to protect the drug turf our Prohibitionists have handed them.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

So now you're just lying.

Troll. Goodbye.

What? Ok, if you have to pretend that anything I said is fabricated to justify your retreat from the stupidity you have expounded, by all means. Goodbye and good riddance.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by remirol

ETA: Boy, I see the butthurt among our resident cultists gets bigger with every piece of evidence indicating that people simply shouldn't have guns in the first place.

Odd, in another thread you had your undies in a bunch because you though people were paranoid for thinking the government was going to take their guns away. Which is exactly what you're advocating.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Therefore, as has been shown. In all circumstances, the bad guys advantage is reduced if the good guy has a gun.

I don't think it has been shown.

An inaccesible gun is useless to the owner and valuable to the thief.

In fact, a nice gun safe may attract a certain kind of thief and make it more likely they will come when you are home; how else will they get the safe open.

An accessible gun may be useless to the owner depending on reaction time and location, but will be dangerous to the owner and the owner's family. If the idea is to protect ones family, then leaving a loaded gun around all the time, in every room, seems a bit counterintuitive. I know a guy who lives like that, but his wife moved out decades ago and his kids make him put the guns away before they will visit. And the accessible gun will always be valuable to the thief. Most thieves will come when you aren't there and be happy to collect your guns, and may even use them on you when you return. The few who come while you are there will have less problem killing someone reaching for a gun.

I think if you map out all the possible scenarios there are far more where owning a gun is bad for the owner than good. You have to be constantly vigilant to get the full benefit of gun ownership, never a lapse in security awareness or safety. Living like that has its own price.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by remirol

You know the funny part? Most of these gunbangers don't even realize that in a home invasion, if their gun isn't right at hand for them to pick up immediately, they'll just get shot while they're going for it.

I'm not even sure they (the gunbangers) understand how fast things move when something like that happens -- you hear the door get kicked in, BANG, and then within a few seconds there are one-to-several people inside with guns out and either giving orders or just shooting people down. And let's not even think about the case when you're asleep and get woken up by the door-kick -- the odds that they'll even know what's happening are so slight that it isn't even funny.

And somehow a gun will save you from this.



If you're worried about home invasions, your #1 priority needs to be to MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE, because the odds are _always_ heavily in favor of the guy who already has his gun out, and in a home invasion? Guess what, that ain't you.

Your evidence that burglars enter homes with gun drawn is...?

Oh, right, you're just slaying that strawman you constructed.

[remirol]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Odd, in another thread you had your undies in a bunch because you though people were paranoid for thinking the government was going to take their guns away. Which is exactly what you're advocating.

There's a difference between believing that something should or could happen and thinking that it actually will. If you work on your reading comprehension you'll see in the other thread where I point out that actually expecting any sort of "confiscation" initiative to succeed is subject to so many practical hurdles that, well, I won't hold my breath.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

I was looking into this recently. In 2011 the rate of homicide was 4.7 per 100,000 (including all methods). The rate of gun death was 10.3 per 100,000. That means that the rate of death from firearms in 2011 was more than double the total murder rate for the same period.

This means that well over half of gun deaths are not deliberate murders. They're accidents and suicides.

Almost all of the remainder are suicides, not accidents. And there's no evidence whatsoever anywhere that gun laws have an effect on suicide rates.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your evidence that burglars enter homes with gun drawn is...?

Oh, right, you're just slaying that strawman you constructed.

One would think that would be common sense. That if you're breaking into a house and you happen to have a gun with you, it would be drawn. What's the point of bringing it with you if you don't use it??

[remirol]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your evidence that burglars enter homes with gun drawn is...?

Burglary != Home Invasion. Burglars enter homes during the day, while people are at work; they make an effort to ensure nobody's home.

More false equivalence from you, how unsurprising.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I don't think it has been shown. ...

It has indeed been shown. We are discussing the situation in which bad guys are physically present and intent on doing bad things. The specific question being addressed in this tit-for-tat is "Is the bad guys advantage increased or decreased if his victim has a gun?"

Not whether or not owning a gun makes it more likely that you will be a victim of criminal activity, in general.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

You admit that you have no evidence, no experience, and no clue. Admission noted.



Military and law enforcement actually train to operate as efficiently and quickly as you describe.


Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune?

Your post makes it seem like you're trolling or playing word games. I don't see this thread as appropriate for that.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Will their advantage be less, if I do or don't have a gun?

Your gun escalates the situation. They might decide to kill you rather than just steal from you. I'd rather the latter, personally. I'd use a gun for defense only if it confers an advantage TO ME.

Quote:

Not at all. Your points are so infantile that presenting them in the light just illustrates their utter ridiculousness.

"Presenting them in the light" doesn't mean "rewriting them so they say something entirely different."

[Cainkane1]

I'm going to say this and then go. People who misuse guns make gun owners who don't look bad. As an owner of six handguns, two shotguns and a few historical rifles including a WW2 era Nagant I have never committed a crime with them.

Shooting a bad guy is the last thing you do especially in the situation the 69 year old fool was involved in. Those kids weren't in the house, they had no weapons and there was no reason for the old idiot to shoot them.

I hope the old fool is convicted as in the book thrown at him.

I've never fired on anythong more vital than paper targets, pumpkins and watermelons and tin cans. I enjoy shooting throughly and I'm as outraged as anyone when something like this happens.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by remirol

Just another case of a god-fearin' second amendment respectin' gun owner protectin' HIS DERN PROPPITY with his legal guns, right?

If only he'd had more training! Isn't that one of the latest gunbanger memes? More training! More knowledge! People can be trusted! Really!

ETA: Boy, I see the butthurt among our resident cultists gets bigger with every piece of evidence indicating that people simply shouldn't have guns in the first place. And the excuses get thinner, and thinner, and thinner, and the cognitive dissonance among them gets stronger and stronger.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this would be hilarious to watch if people weren't having to die to prove the point that people are lazy, careless, and irresponsible, and only a small fraction of them should _ever_ be trusted with lethal weapons.

Well isn't that charming and helpful.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

No, it is pretty clear that the citation required is that the bad guys will be able to do their business before the good guys have time to react.

Really ? Where do you keep your gun, sir ? In a safe with the ammunition in a separate compartment, as you should ? If so, how fast could you retrieve and arm your gun once you hear people tear down your front door in the middle of the night ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

No, it does not depend. Even in the cases where you want to reduce the possibility of one accessing their firearm to an infinitesimally small number, that number is still greater than zero.

Therefore, as has been shown. In all circumstances, the bad guys advantage is reduced if the good guy has a gun.

"Shown" ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Forgive me, but I don't have the time to go through that with you right now.

You are magnificent, mister "citation needed".

[phunk]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

I don't sleep and keep my safe right next to my outside door. Do you? I live in a dwelling that has individual, separate rooms.

I do agree that if I lived in some sort of communal hut, the scenario you mention could be problematic.

So when someone breaks in, they are immediately in between you and your guns? This seems poorly planned.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I'm going to say this and then go. People who misuse guns make gun owners who don't look bad. As an owner of six handguns, two shotguns and a few historical rifles including a WW2 era Nagant I have never committed a crime with them.

Shooting a bad guy is the last thing you do especially in the situation the 69 year old fool was involved in. Those kids weren't in the house, they had no weapons and there was no reason for the old idiot to shoot them.

I hope the old fool is convicted as in the book thrown at him.

I've never fired on anythong more vital than paper targets, pumpkins and watermelons and tin cans. I enjoy shooting throughly and I'm as outraged as anyone when something like this happens.

And people who hate guns and have contempt for gun owners get raging hard-ons with cases like this as it reenforces their already turgid confirmation bias.

This lack of rational thinking and bigotry wouldn't be tolerated in any other subject. Hell, look among these threads and you'll find people who say that correcting basic factual errors is a fallacy (!?!).

[NoahFence]

Quote:

I've never fired on anythong more vital than paper targets, pumpkins and watermelons and tin cans. I enjoy shooting throughly and I'm as outraged as anyone when something like this happens.

You dirty bird....