If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click On Detroit)   Not news: Man breaks in to house. News: Woman in the home warns the man she has a gun and will shoot, and does, killing the man. FARK: This is the 8th time someone has broken in to their house   (clickondetroit.com) divider line 387
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

13859 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 7:36 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-02 04:54:35 PM  
It's farkin' Detroit, that house is in a low crime area.
 
2014-03-02 05:07:18 PM  
But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!
 
2014-03-02 05:43:43 PM  
There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.
 
2014-03-02 06:36:42 PM  
You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.
 
2014-03-02 06:39:31 PM  
Hey ma'am, nice shot
 
2014-03-02 06:53:56 PM  
Poor young man. Likely an aspiring rapper turning his life around.
 
2014-03-02 07:15:05 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.
 
2014-03-02 07:17:59 PM  
The comments....oh dear god, the comments....
 
2014-03-02 07:38:38 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


Sure, because everybody has money...right??
 
2014-03-02 07:39:05 PM  

bearded clamorer: Hey ma'am, nice shot


Well, she's getting plenty of practice.

/knows where you were going with that, skillfully avoided it
 
2014-03-02 07:39:20 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-02 07:39:31 PM  
The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed
 
2014-03-02 07:41:21 PM  
Arsenic and Hot Lead
 
2014-03-02 07:42:36 PM  
Detroit is like Mad Max, only more depressing.
 
2014-03-02 07:43:05 PM  
media.giphy.com

/ no trial, no reports to file
 
2014-03-02 07:44:41 PM  
CHOOT HIM!
 
2014-03-02 07:44:43 PM  
Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.
 
2014-03-02 07:45:07 PM  
Lionel Mandrake: The comments....oh dear god, the comments....

I just sacrificed a few of the weaker brain cells reading some of those.
 
2014-03-02 07:45:16 PM  
Good job.

One dirtbag removed.

One idiot removed.

All with one bullet.
 
2014-03-02 07:45:57 PM  
community.us.playstation.com
 
2014-03-02 07:46:09 PM  

doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.


Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.
 
2014-03-02 07:47:09 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner nogoodniks would get a clue after the first break-in pwnage and 1) put bars on the windows get a new line of work or 2) move to a safer neighborhood go rob a liberal's house.


FTFY.
 
2014-03-02 07:47:51 PM  

doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!


Yes, the moral of the story is that guns and Detroit have been a spectacular success.
 
2014-03-02 07:49:15 PM  
I recorded my feelings about this story on YouTube.
 
2014-03-02 07:50:15 PM  
She needs one of these:

www.geekchunks.com
 
2014-03-02 07:50:46 PM  
Ah Detroit: what 50 years of liberal leadership gets you.
 
2014-03-02 07:50:48 PM  

bearded clamorer: Hey ma'am, nice shot


awesome.

smells_like_meat: Poor young man. Likely an aspiring rapper turning his life around.


ha ha.
 
2014-03-02 07:50:50 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-02 07:50:50 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The comments....oh dear god, the comments....


I know, they're pretty scary on the newsite too.
 
2014-03-02 07:54:37 PM  

luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.


Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.
 
2014-03-02 07:57:22 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


Your right. You should give her the money to afford either of those options.
 
2014-03-02 07:57:35 PM  

Yakk: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

Yes, the moral of the story is that guns and Detroit have been a spectacular success.


If I lived in Detroit, I would want an AA-12 with two drums for the bedroom. Buck shot: slugs 2:1 mixed up.
 
2014-03-02 07:57:51 PM  
Good shot, Ma'am.
 
2014-03-02 07:59:26 PM  
One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.
 
2014-03-02 07:59:45 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


Wow. we even play "blame the victim" when a guy forces entry through a basement window?

I'm sure the goofs family hopes you will be on the jury of the wrongful death lawsuit.

Maybe they can say with so many burglaries she's obviously making her house an attractive nuisance.
 
2014-03-02 08:00:04 PM  

caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.


Hi point pistols AND rifles are cheap and ugly as hell. They are also surprisingly accurate and well made, and dirt cheap
 
2014-03-02 08:01:25 PM  
Nice hobby, homeowner.
 
2014-03-02 08:03:08 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


Why should the woman have to do any of that? That's almost like saying "let me teach you how to not get raped" instead of teaching dudes not to rape.
 
2014-03-02 08:04:09 PM  
She should go into the meat pie business.
 
2014-03-02 08:04:23 PM  

Livinglush: Hi point pistols AND rifles are cheap and ugly as hell. They are also surprisingly accurate and well made, and dirt cheap


They also create GREAT jobs for hand and vascular surgeons when they blow up in your face or slide-bite your thumb in two.

Hi Point pistols are widely regarded as Mall Ninja guns and Saturday Night Specials.
 
2014-03-02 08:04:52 PM  
She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"
 
2014-03-02 08:04:57 PM  
Liberal gun owner here...

Nice shot, ma'am. Glad you weren't hurt. Hope the DA isn't put under pressure to charge you with anything.
Sucks to be the home invasion robber, but he made his choices.
 
2014-03-02 08:05:07 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


Blame the victim, cheif.
 
2014-03-02 08:07:06 PM  

bearded clamorer: Hey ma'am, nice shot


Nice shot, ma'am.
 
2014-03-02 08:08:01 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


captain-america.us

No, you tell the criminals that they should move.
 
2014-03-02 08:08:12 PM  
doglover:
Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

People often forget that there's a white area in Detroit (or just outside it?) that's quite uhh... white and safe.
I don't know why they would live in or near Detroit, but it's pretty normal from what I've heard.
 
2014-03-02 08:09:23 PM  

ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed


 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.
 
2014-03-02 08:09:35 PM  

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.


Whoa whoa whoa.  Around here people are defined by their political opposition.

But seriously, this place would be better if every thread wasn't a race to pigeonhole everyone so any point they make can be dismissed.
 
2014-03-02 08:09:51 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Detroit is like Mad Max, only more depressing.


Mad Max as interpreted by Nabokov.
 
2014-03-02 08:12:47 PM  

hardinparamedic: Livinglush: Hi point pistols AND rifles are cheap and ugly as hell. They are also surprisingly accurate and well made, and dirt cheap

They also create GREAT jobs for hand and vascular surgeons when they blow up in your face or slide-bite your thumb in two.

Hi Point pistols are widely regarded as Mall Ninja guns and Saturday Night Specials.


Cite your sources that prove they are any more dangerous to the user than any other brand of firearm.
 
2014-03-02 08:12:48 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: doglover:
Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

People often forget that there's a white area in Detroit (or just outside it?) that's quite uhh... white and safe.
I don't know why they would live in or near Detroit, but it's pretty normal from what I've heard.


It's cuz Robocop's a honkey.
 
2014-03-02 08:13:32 PM  

doglover: God-is-a-Taco: doglover:
Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

People often forget that there's a white area in Detroit (or just outside it?) that's quite uhh... white and safe.
I don't know why they would live in or near Detroit, but it's pretty normal from what I've heard.

It's cuz Robocop's a honkey.


Omniconsumer Products got a budget increase and put a train horn on him now. I'd buy that for a dollar.
 
2014-03-02 08:14:53 PM  

Livinglush: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

Hi point pistols AND rifles are cheap and ugly as hell. They are also surprisingly accurate and well made, and dirt cheap


I'd buy one, but i'd keep saying 'fugging ugly' even on the forms and my background check...
 
2014-03-02 08:16:25 PM  

anuran: Liberal gun owner here...

Nice shot, ma'am. Glad you weren't hurt. Hope the DA isn't put under pressure to charge you with anything.
Sucks to be the home invasion robber, but he made his choices.


????????????


/??????
 
2014-03-02 08:17:31 PM  

clarksvegas: Livinglush: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

Hi point pistols AND rifles are cheap and ugly as hell. They are also surprisingly accurate and well made, and dirt cheap

I'd buy one, but i'd keep saying 'fugging ugly' even on the forms and my background check...


Agreed. After doing a ton of research and test firing of candidates on cheap pistols to have a couple laying there in our B.O.B.s, the only reason I didn't get then was because they are indeed just god awful ugly.
 
2014-03-02 08:18:02 PM  

Livinglush: Cite your sources that prove they are any more dangerous to the user than any other brand of firearm.


Well, I'll believe the owner of our local range who banned them from all of his classes as well as being used on the range, or the fact there have been multiple people report their C9 handgun blowing up in their hand. And slide-bite is a common thing with Hi-point pistols, as the handgrip upper does not come back very far compared with the slide.

No offense to you if you love them, but I've never heard of an M&P, Browning High Power, or M1911 blowing up in someone's hand for no discernible reason.
 
2014-03-02 08:20:26 PM  

a particular individual: Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent Fark Liberalstell you we are.


FTFY.

/I've been called both a gun-grabber and an NRA shill. In the same thread. For the same comment...
 
2014-03-02 08:21:43 PM  
did they take up a collection to keep her in the house, or do we start one here??
 
2014-03-02 08:21:59 PM  
If she's white she'll be plastered all over Fox for the next week. (especially if the dead guy is black)

If she's black this story won't make it past Monday. (Tuesday if the dead guy is black)

Conservatives like guns about as equally as they dislike the idea of blacks with guns.
 
2014-03-02 08:22:12 PM  

jayphat: She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"


I was thinking something on the order of little kill-markers - perhaps cartoon thieves - under the windows and beside the doors.
 
2014-03-02 08:22:50 PM  
Amateur.
 
2014-03-02 08:23:14 PM  
There is no difference between this incident and Trayvon.  Bad person got shot trying to injure innocent person.
 
2014-03-02 08:23:52 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: jayphat: She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"

I was thinking something on the order of little kill-markers - perhaps cartoon thieves - under the windows and beside the doors.


Like those stupid family stickers you see on minivans?
 
2014-03-02 08:24:30 PM  

caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.


NO.
HiPoint pistols and rifles are
A) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.
B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALL
C) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.
 
2014-03-02 08:25:54 PM  
images.fineartamerica.com
 
2014-03-02 08:27:23 PM  

jayphat: Like those stupid family stickers you see on minivans?


I bought 40 of those family-cat stickers and put them on the back of a female co-workers car.

She didn't notice for a week.
 
2014-03-02 08:27:38 PM  

Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.


I wonder what the best thing to shout would be then? Maybe just start barking orders like a cop does... Instead of "Stop or I'll shoot!" maybe a very aggressive "Get down on the ground NOW farkface!" Maybe trigger am instinctive learned response, evoking run ins with the police. Did the paper you read give any hints as to what DID seem to work to not end in a shooting?
 
2014-03-02 08:27:52 PM  

FnkyTwn: jayphat: Like those stupid family stickers you see on minivans?

I bought 40 of those family-cat stickers and put them on the back of a female co-workers car.

She didn't notice for a week.


And favorited as "genius"
 
2014-03-02 08:29:05 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: There is no difference between this incident and Trayvon.  Bad person got shot trying to injure innocent person.


10/10

Now THAT'S how you troll, ladies and gents.
 
2014-03-02 08:29:34 PM  

Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.


Very plausible, although I'd love to see the studies.
That said, giving a verbal warning is very useful for your second round of self defense, the one against the legal system.
 
2014-03-02 08:29:44 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


Moving implies selling your house to someone. Who the F is going to buy that house?
 
2014-03-02 08:30:09 PM  

hardinparamedic: Livinglush: Cite your sources that prove they are any more dangerous to the user than any other brand of firearm.

Well, I'll believe the owner of our local range who banned them from all of his classes as well as being used on the range, or the fact there have been multiple people report their C9 handgun blowing up in their hand. And slide-bite is a common thing with Hi-point pistols, as the handgrip upper does not come back very far compared with the slide.

No offense to you if you love them, but I've never heard of an M&P, Browning High Power, or M1911 blowing up in someone's hand for no discernible reason.


So where are these comparison reports? I would love to see them and I will gladly change my opinion.
 
2014-03-02 08:31:31 PM  
There are only 2 kinds of people, those who are adequately armed and victims.
 
2014-03-02 08:32:35 PM  
I like my Hi Point 9mm pistol.   Bought it 15 years ago, shoot it a couple times each year, never had a problem with it.
 
2014-03-02 08:33:49 PM  

BayouOtter: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

NO.
HiPoint pistols and rifles are
A) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.
B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALL
C) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.


As I said to another poster: cite sources that provide fail rate comparison with other brands.
 
2014-03-02 08:35:13 PM  
I'm sorry, but if you break into my home I am not giving a warning.  I have no idea what your intentions are and I am not going to risk my life to find out.  I'm not going to give up the advantage of surprise and give away my position.  Once I identify the person as someone that has no reason to be in the house, they are getting shot.  It doesn't matter if they are armed or not.  Just because they don't have a gun in their hand doesn't mean they don't have one in their waste band.  Hell they could grab a lamp or many other household items and swing those as a weapon.  If you aren't willing to risk your life, you should not break into someone's home.  It just shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.
 
2014-03-02 08:37:33 PM  

Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??


Guns don't cost money??
 
2014-03-02 08:37:41 PM  

doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!


Of course a gun lover also loves dogs, a needy animal to further bolster his low selfesteem.
 
2014-03-02 08:38:47 PM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??


Not a crappy Hi-Point.
 
2014-03-02 08:40:27 PM  

Livinglush: So where are these comparison reports? I would love to see them and I will gladly change my opinion.


www.thetruthaboutguns.com

You might like it. I don't. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, either. And you can google the reports of the C9 Blowing up in people's hands if you want to read them.

I'll stick to my Walther/S&W
 
2014-03-02 08:43:49 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.


One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.
 
2014-03-02 08:45:34 PM  
"This is the  sixth seventh eighth time we have had an intruder, and we have become exceedingly efficient at destroying them."
 
2014-03-02 08:47:04 PM  
Wait. Wait.  I KNOW WHY YOU WANT A HI POINT.

2.bp.blogspot.com

You can be all high speed and tacticool on a budget, Yo!
 
2014-03-02 08:47:26 PM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??


Are you even attempting to suggest a gun is as expensive as moving???
 
2014-03-02 08:49:34 PM  

Farkage: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Are you even attempting to suggest a gun is as expensive as moving???


Depends...you can get family and friends to help you move.
 
2014-03-02 08:51:58 PM  
Sucks to be that guy, I guess.

ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed


Why would she lie about it, exactly?

You do realize that she had no legal obligation whatsoever to provide him a warning of any kind once he forcibly entered her home, right?  Shooting him dead without saying a word to him, from behind, with no warning, would have been completely legally legitimate.

// Bars would probably be a good plan, but she has no  obligation to put bars up.  The only people  obligated to do something to prevent break-ins are the burglars, who are obligated to  not farking break into houses.
 
2014-03-02 08:53:25 PM  
Hope the cops are giving her a frequent pick up discount.
 
2014-03-02 08:53:47 PM  

Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.


For only a mere $1000's of dollars per home, and there's no other uses for them.

Meanwhile a gun is $100's and fills multiple roles in both defense, sport, and in rare cases track meets.
 
2014-03-02 08:54:35 PM  
Subby said: "Not news: Man breaks in to house. News: Woman in the home warns the man she has a gun and will shoot, and does, killing the man. FARK: This is the 8th time someone has broken in to their house"

It's not "their" house anymore, right?
 
2014-03-02 08:55:47 PM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??


If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?
She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.
 
2014-03-02 08:56:06 PM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??


basic hi point c-9 (tiny 9mm bullet) goes for about  $189 retail

you might make it out of the uhaul store for under that. moving from shiatty to shiatty doesn't do much. that's not counting own vs rent. if selling the house, good luck. i hear the market for
Detroit houses isslightly better than housing in Pompeii in 79
 
2014-03-02 08:56:52 PM  
lonerancher: I'm sorry, but if you break into my home I am not giving a warning. I have no idea what your intentions are and I am not going to risk my life to find out. I'm not going to give up the advantage of surprise and give away my position. Once I identify the person as someone that has no reason to be in the house, they are getting shot. It doesn't matter if they are armed or not. Just because they don't have a gun in their hand doesn't mean they don't have one in their waste band. Hell they could grab a lamp or many other household items and swing those as a weapon. If you aren't willing to risk your life, you should not break into someone's home. It just shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.

I agree. If you shout something at them, several things can happen, and all of them except their turning around and leaving is not in your favor. The first is that if they are armed, you are now in an even-up shoot out instead of having the drop on them. The second is that they become a moving target, much harder to hit. Why would you give up your advantage of surprise? The first sound they hear should be the gun going off.

Of course, I'm a southern country boy and the very idea of someone trying to break into my house doesn't mean danger; it means "hot damn, I get to shoot somebody!!!" Anyways it will never happen, nobody can get close to my house without the dogs howling for ten minutes.
 
2014-03-02 08:56:58 PM  

cig-mkr: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?
She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.


Probably wanted to steal her gun.....
 
2014-03-02 08:57:02 PM  

doglover: and in rare cases track meets.


www.independent.co.uk

ALLEGEDLY!
 
2014-03-02 08:57:20 PM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.
 
2014-03-02 08:58:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Wait. Wait.  I KNOW WHY YOU WANT A HI POINT.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

You can be all high speed and tacticool on a budget, Yo!


That model is actually the best thing hi-point makes,  and pistol carbines aren't usually that affordable.
...But they are more accurate, easy to handle, get better range. Perfect for home defense.

/Mother of three used one to chase off some hoodlums a few headlines ago.
/If kel-tec would get its act together, they'd be selling alot more sub-2000's in that catagory.
 
2014-03-02 08:58:20 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Sucks to be that guy, I guess.

ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

Why would she lie about it, exactly?

You do realize that she had no legal obligation whatsoever to provide him a warning of any kind once he forcibly entered her home, right?  Shooting him dead without saying a word to him, from behind, with no warning, would have been completely legally legitimate.

// Bars would probably be a good plan, but she has no  obligation to put bars up.  The only people  obligated to do something to prevent break-ins are the burglars, who are obligated to  not farking break into houses.


Few years ago a new law passed in Florida, if you are with someone who commits a felony, you get charged too. Sure enough 3 village idiots tried to break into a man's home, he warned and the kid still tried to climb through the window and got shot. The other two kids were charged with murder.
You would think this curbs violence, apparently not since the crime rate has "barely" dropped 5% since this. Fact is criminals will continue to be criminals, guns control this fact.

The problem is however, you can say bad guys can't have guns, they laugh and show you their guns.
 
2014-03-02 08:58:24 PM  
Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.
 
2014-03-02 08:59:16 PM  
Jesus! Moving?  Yeh, I'm sure she can get an even trade for a home in a nicer neighborhood.  A gun is a few hundred dollars.  Moving involves the cost of the new property which I will bet is a few more dollars than a gun.
 
2014-03-02 09:00:10 PM  

doglover: Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.

For only a mere $1000's of dollars per home, and there's no other uses for them.

Meanwhile a gun is $100's and fills multiple roles in both defense, sport, and in rare cases track meets.


Then put security laminates on the windows. Cheaper than bars, and one can break the windows from the inside in case of fire.

It beats spending one's life clutching a gun 24/7, just waiting for the next break-in to occur.
 
2014-03-02 09:00:21 PM  

ultraholland: Lionel Mandrake: The comments....oh dear god, the comments....

I just sacrificed a few of the weaker brain cells reading some of those.


Natural selection. Your brain will be stronger for it.
 
2014-03-02 09:00:56 PM  

genner: cig-mkr: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?
She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.

Probably wanted to steal her gun.....


And wound up on the wrong end of that deal.
 
2014-03-02 09:01:05 PM  

Livinglush: clarksvegas: Livinglush: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

Hi point pistols AND rifles are cheap and ugly as hell. They are also surprisingly accurate and well made, and dirt cheap

I'd buy one, but i'd keep saying 'fugging ugly' even on the forms and my background check...

Agreed. After doing a ton of research and test firing of candidates on cheap pistols to have a couple laying there in our B.O.B.s, the only reason I didn't get then was because they are indeed just god awful ugly.


They have all the ergonomics of a cordless drill. But, you pull the trigger and they go bang. I've also heard about some bad ones, which the factory repaired/replaced no questions asked. The same rap is laid on the SCCY 9mms. Another: pull the trigger and it goes bang. It breaks and the factory fixes. I have one of each. I have no illusions that they are as good as my Colt 1911 or my Glock. But, the best gun in the world is the one that you have on you when the fight starts.
 
2014-03-02 09:01:21 PM  
Hi-Point.  The only guns known to man which can out-ugly the Glock.
 
2014-03-02 09:01:44 PM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Are you even attempting to suggest a gun is as expensive as moving???

Depends...you can get family and friends to help you move.


Move bodies too?
 
2014-03-02 09:03:57 PM  
I think it was rather considerate of the fellow to try and make sure he didn't bleed out all over her floor....not many intruders would put forth that effort.
 
2014-03-02 09:04:04 PM  
Sorry folks.  Her possessing the gun is what is causing all of this.  It acts like a catalyst, drawing moths to a flame.  Those young men she has shot and threatened to shoot are the victims of her dark, twisted sociopathetic persona.  She should be locked away - at least until she has received professional help for her bloodlust and able to rejoin society.  Remove her from the equation and these fine young men will surprise you.
 
2014-03-02 09:04:17 PM  

hardinparamedic: Wait. Wait.  I KNOW WHY YOU WANT A HI POINT.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

You can be all high speed and tacticool on a budget, Yo!


And it's still a 9mm and it still only holds 10 shots.  You could take on the whole Russian Army with that!
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:05:02 PM  

Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.


I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?
Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:
img.4plebs.org
 
2014-03-02 09:05:06 PM  

RatMaster999: Hi-Point.  The only guns known to man which can out-ugly the Glock.


As long as the blasterpiece can stop a perp dead in his tracks, who cares?  Not sure the point here, do you think it would be embarrassing to be shot with an ugly fire arm?
 
2014-03-02 09:05:49 PM  

jayphat: Benevolent Misanthrope: jayphat: She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"

I was thinking something on the order of little kill-markers - perhaps cartoon thieves - under the windows and beside the doors.

Like those stupid family stickers you see on minivans?


But with striped shirts and masks, holding little bags with dollar signs on them, perhaps.
 
2014-03-02 09:07:13 PM  

martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.


Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.
 
2014-03-02 09:07:23 PM  
Though I will say, that may be the one and only acceptable use for those damn stick figure decals.
 
2014-03-02 09:08:51 PM  

Lorelle: doglover: Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.

For only a mere $1000's of dollars per home, and there's no other uses for them.

Meanwhile a gun is $100's and fills multiple roles in both defense, sport, and in rare cases track meets.

Then put security laminates on the windows. Cheaper than bars, and one can break the windows from the inside in case of fire.

It beats spending one's life clutching a gun 24/7, just waiting for the next break-in to occur.


That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.
 
2014-03-02 09:09:43 PM  

Lorelle: martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.

Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.


So you get to project your circumstances on everyone else who may be in a remotely similar situation. How cute.
 
2014-03-02 09:12:06 PM  

martid4: RatMaster999: Hi-Point.  The only guns known to man which can out-ugly the Glock.

As long as the blasterpiece can stop a perp dead in his tracks, who cares?  Not sure the point here, do you think it would be embarrassing to be shot with an ugly fire arm?


I'd be embarrassed to admit owning one, but it beats having nothing more than a sharp stick.  At least it's a better choice than the $79 Raven Arms little pistols...
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:12:50 PM  

Lorelle: martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.

Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.


Well whoopdyshiat for you. Last time I saw that much projection was the matinee of 'Gravity'.

You and mister "move to another place" must be screwing each other.
 
2014-03-02 09:15:18 PM  
Why is it reported as fact that she warned him?
 
2014-03-02 09:15:38 PM  

RatMaster999: martid4: RatMaster999: Hi-Point.  The only guns known to man which can out-ugly the Glock.

As long as the blasterpiece can stop a perp dead in his tracks, who cares?  Not sure the point here, do you think it would be embarrassing to be shot with an ugly fire arm?

I'd be embarrassed to admit owning one, but it beats having nothing more than a sharp stick.  At least it's a better choice than the $79 Raven Arms little pistols...


A $79 pistol?

(o.O)

Why!?
 
2014-03-02 09:15:53 PM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??


Decent used revolver: $200
Bars on windows: Easily a couple thousand bucks.
Moving: Tens of thousands, especially since you'll have to sell your high-crime home for a loss.
 
2014-03-02 09:16:16 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Sucks to be that guy, I guess.

ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

Why would she lie about it, exactly?


Because some people, including the occasional cop, are stupid enough to automatically assume the armed survivor of any lethal force situation is automatically the guilty party, and will use any shred of evidence that the survivor was anything less than a perfect saint as defined by local morals (hint: in Detroit, that means "liberal to the point of self-destruction") to make a snap judgement, procedure be damned.

/if they were good cops Detroit might not have such rampant crime
//lying to the cops isn't a good idea in the long run, but in the short term, if the cops are letting you know things will get ugly if you don't say what they want to hear, you better say what they want to hear
 
2014-03-02 09:16:27 PM  
doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.


Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."
 
2014-03-02 09:16:42 PM  

Dwindle: bearded clamorer: Hey ma'am, nice shot

Nice shot, ma'am.


Hey ma'am, have fun.
 
2014-03-02 09:16:46 PM  
Why didn't she call the police and run from the house or retreat to the farthest room in the house ? The police would have been there sooner or later . Why hang around when she could have clearly gotten away ? This could have been avoided . I bet this responsible gun owner creamed her jeans at the chance to kill someone

/Trollin
 
2014-03-02 09:17:33 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Detroit is like Mad Max, only more depressing.


Kind of seems like a time travel mishap to me, like the alternate Hill Valley in BttF
 
2014-03-02 09:18:11 PM  
According to the woman's husband, this is the eighth time someone has broken into their home.

Let's just take this as gospel. There's no way he could possibly be lying or exaggerating.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:18:37 PM  

doglover: RatMaster999: martid4: RatMaster999: Hi-Point.  The only guns known to man which can out-ugly the Glock.

As long as the blasterpiece can stop a perp dead in his tracks, who cares?  Not sure the point here, do you think it would be embarrassing to be shot with an ugly fire arm?

I'd be embarrassed to admit owning one, but it beats having nothing more than a sharp stick.  At least it's a better choice than the $79 Raven Arms little pistols...

A $79 pistol?

(o.O)

Why!?


Probably stamped with a "Best if used by" date....

There are some things it is best not to cheap-out on.
 
2014-03-02 09:19:40 PM  

anuran: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Decent used revolver: $200
Bars on windows: Easily a couple thousand bucks.
Moving: Tens of thousands, especially since you'll have to sell your high-crime home for a loss.


Replacing broken windows eight times isn't costly??
 
2014-03-02 09:21:59 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Sucks to be that guy, I guess.

ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

Why would she lie about it, exactly?

You do realize that she had no legal obligation whatsoever to provide him a warning of any kind once he forcibly entered her home, right?  Shooting him dead without saying a word to him, from behind, with no warning, would have been completely legally legitimate.

// Bars would probably be a good plan, but she has no  obligation to put bars up.  The only people  obligated to do something to prevent break-ins are the burglars, who are obligated to  not farking break into houses.


Maryland requires you to retreat from an intruder in your home if at all possible.  If you shoot an intruder in the back you will be charged.  If you shoot an intruder in the front and tell the police you were afraid for you life you've got maybe a 50/50 chance of not being charged.  Maybe...
 
2014-03-02 09:22:54 PM  

Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."


You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:22:59 PM  

Lorelle: anuran: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Decent used revolver: $200
Bars on windows: Easily a couple thousand bucks.
Moving: Tens of thousands, especially since you'll have to sell your high-crime home for a loss.

Replacing broken windows eight times isn't costly??


Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

BTW, window panes are about 5-10 bucks. Moving is just a tad more (like 10000 times more at least).
 
2014-03-02 09:24:51 PM  

Penman: You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.


Discretion is the better part of valor.

Chances are if she had a gun, and had tried to go for it she wouldn't be here typing this today.
 
2014-03-02 09:26:24 PM  

stuartp9: She needs one of these:

[www.geekchunks.com image 487x300]


or one of these:

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-02 09:26:34 PM  

K3rmy: Sorry folks.  Her possessing the gun is what is causing all of this.  It acts like a catalyst, drawing moths to a flame.  Those young men she has shot and threatened to shoot are the victims of her dark, twisted sociopathetic persona.  She should be locked away - at least until she has received professional help for her bloodlust and able to rejoin society.  Remove her from the equation and these fine young men will surprise you.


...instead of her.
 
2014-03-02 09:26:34 PM  

hardinparamedic: Penman: You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Chances are if she had a gun, and had tried to go for it she wouldn't be here typing this today.


That's why you have it in hand, you don't say to the robber "Excuse me I've got to go get my gun."
 
2014-03-02 09:27:17 PM  

twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.


The trolls are staying away from this one.
 
2014-03-02 09:28:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: Penman: You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Chances are if she had a gun, and had tried to go for it she wouldn't be here typing this today.


Agreed. Kind of have to take a lot of different situations in life on a case by case basis though.
 
2014-03-02 09:29:07 PM  

Penman: That's why you have it in hand, you don't say to the robber "Excuse me I've got to go get my gun."


Ah, so I see. It's her fault for not having it strapped to her leg in a drop tactical holster 24/7?

cdn.firearmstalk.com
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:29:20 PM  

RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.


And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.
 
2014-03-02 09:30:08 PM  

Penman: Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.


I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

gja: Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.


F*ck off, asshole.

/see, I made a CHOICE to defend myself
 
2014-03-02 09:30:54 PM  
ttc2301:
They have all the ergonomics of a cordless drill.

Not that good. A professional quality drill has to be comfortable, vibration and all for eight hours a day. If it isn't the carpenters and electricians and plumbers will buy something else; their hands are their livelihood. Almost nobody fires a gun that much day in and day out.

But, you pull the trigger and they go bang.

And that is what a gun needs to do above all else.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:31:33 PM  

Lorelle: Penman: Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

gja: Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

F*ck off, asshole.

/see, I made a CHOICE to defend myself


Good for you. EABOBOD dearie. You are a well documented headcase.
 
2014-03-02 09:32:20 PM  

Lorelle: Penman: Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

gja: Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

F*ck off, asshole.

/see, I made a CHOICE to defend myself


So as long as everybody keeps a pot of boiling chicken soup next to them at all times, they're good to go until they save up the money to move.
Got it.
 
2014-03-02 09:33:57 PM  

the ha ha guy: /I've been called both a gun-grabber and an NRA shill. In the same thread. For the same comment...


Speculation: in a single post you endorsed both universal background checks while rejecting a ban on scary-looking rifles (due to the presence of handgrips that stick out from the stock) as ineffective.
 
2014-03-02 09:34:33 PM  

Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."


Oh heavens to mergatroid! Somebody broke into my home and pointed a gun at me 29 years ago! Oh the horror!

shiat happens. Get some therapy.

It's the fight or flight response, and you chose flight. There's another option. Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

But this doesn't mean the skunk just walks around waiting for a chance to spray. They're actually just cool little guys who bumble through the forest looking for munchies and lady skunks. If they could, they'd go their whole life without spraying. But if push comes to shove, they can push back.

And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.
 
2014-03-02 09:35:04 PM  

Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.


So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.
 
2014-03-02 09:35:57 PM  

gja: Good for you. EABOBOD dearie. You are a well documented headcase.


Awww...pobrecito. Why do you get so upset when women fight back??
 
2014-03-02 09:36:09 PM  
al's hat:

Maryland requires you to retreat from an intruder in your home if at all possible.  If you shoot an intruder in the back you will be charged.  If you shoot an intruder in the front and tell the police you were afraid for you life you've got maybe a 50/50 chance of not being charged.  Maybe...

I'd like to see a citation on that. The last I heard Massachusetts was the last State that had a Duty to Retreat in your own home. And that changed within a year of Dukakis leaving office.
 
2014-03-02 09:36:59 PM  

Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.


The criminal I mean.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:39:07 PM  

Lorelle: gja: Good for you. EABOBOD dearie. You are a well documented headcase.

Awww...pobrecito. Why do you get so upset when women fight back??


LOL. Upset? I am not upset with you. You are nutty as an acorn tree sweetie. Have a nice night. Try not to hurt your brain on any big words.
 
2014-03-02 09:39:50 PM  

gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.


Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:41:20 PM  

Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.


Yup. In NY she would get a gaggle of lawyers letters from the sharks the perp would hire to sue her butt into the next millennia.
 
2014-03-02 09:41:35 PM  

doglover: And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.


While I am uncertain as to my full opinion of your analogy of squirrels and skunks, I can state that I prefer it to the analogy of sheep and sheepdogs.
 
2014-03-02 09:42:59 PM  

hardinparamedic: Penman: You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Chances are if she had a gun, and had tried to go for it she wouldn't be here typing this today.


Chances are you don't cook with a gun.

The gun is just a hotter pot of soup that you can keep by the bed. But any good interior decorating scheme should include throwable knick-knacks and some actual
weapons. Swords on the wall, knives in the kitchen, baseball bat and balls in the den, questionable african doll headed spear stick curio I don't know who bought me but was a good walking stick in the corner. The whole world's a weapon just waiting to be used.
 
2014-03-02 09:45:19 PM  

doglover: Oh heavens to mergatroid! Somebody broke into my home and pointed a gun at me 29 years ago! Oh the horror!

shiat happens. Get some therapy.

It's the fight or flight response, and you chose flight. There's another option. Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

But this doesn't mean the skunk just walks around waiting for a chance to spray. They're actually just cool little guys who bumble through the forest looking for munchies and lady skunks. If they could, they'd go their whole life without spraying. But if push comes to shove, they can push back.

And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.


When one faces a serious threat to one's life, one has a tendency to remember it, even decades later. Therapy helps in the short-term, but the memory lasts forever. And yes, I did think about it yesterday, but I didn't spend the entire day dwelling on it.

And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him); I fought back with what was available.

I don't have a pet skunk, but there are several cans of chicken soup in my humble abode (among other, more dangerous things). :)
 
2014-03-02 09:49:36 PM  

anuran: al's hat:

Maryland requires you to retreat from an intruder in your home if at all possible.  If you shoot an intruder in the back you will be charged.  If you shoot an intruder in the front and tell the police you were afraid for you life you've got maybe a 50/50 chance of not being charged.  Maybe...

I'd like to see a citation on that. The last I heard Massachusetts was the last State that had a Duty to Retreat in your own home. And that changed within a year of Dukakis leaving office.


Apparently the duty to retreat only applies outside of the home.  But it looks like you have to actually be being attacked in your home to justifiably shoot and kill an intruder.

"[A] man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker." Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). The Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him."
 
2014-03-02 09:49:54 PM  

Dimensio: doglover: And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

While I am uncertain as to my full opinion of your analogy of squirrels and skunks, I can state that I prefer it to the analogy of sheep and sheepdogs.


Because sheep and sheepdogs doesn't work.

Sheep will nig a farker up if you cross between ewes and lambs. Sheepdogs will, absent commands, probably befriend anyone with a piece of bacon or two.

Fight or flight, on the other hand... that works great. Both can save you, both have pros and cons. Ideally, you have both, but not everyone does.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:50:49 PM  

Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him


What? No windows?
 
2014-03-02 09:51:25 PM  

Lorelle: martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.

Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.


You do realize that people like you moving out of the borderline safe areas are what eventually makes them utter sh*tholes for those who can't afford to move? All the God fearing upstanding citizens run further and further into the suburbs because they want to sleep easier at night.
 
2014-03-02 09:52:01 PM  

doglover: Sheep will nig a farker up if you cross between ewes and lambs.


moonbattery.com
www.somegif.com
 
2014-03-02 09:53:44 PM  

Lorelle: doglover: Oh heavens to mergatroid! Somebody broke into my home and pointed a gun at me 29 years ago! Oh the horror!

shiat happens. Get some therapy.

It's the fight or flight response, and you chose flight. There's another option. Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

But this doesn't mean the skunk just walks around waiting for a chance to spray. They're actually just cool little guys who bumble through the forest looking for munchies and lady skunks. If they could, they'd go their whole life without spraying. But if push comes to shove, they can push back.

And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

When one faces a serious threat to one's life, one has a tendency to remember it, even decades later. Therapy helps in the short-term, but the memory lasts forever. And yes, I did think about it yesterday, but I didn't spend the entire day dwelling on it.

And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him); I fought back with what was available.

I don't have a pet skunk, but there are several cans of chicken soup in my humble abode (among other, more dangerous things). :)


Honestly, I have it on good authority(my own) that scalds suck.

Like... really suck.

If they could make a boiling water super-soaker, that would be godawful scary but great for home defense.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:53:45 PM  

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?


Left this out:
www.examiner.com
 
2014-03-02 09:55:20 PM  

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.


Except I've seen far too many liberals saying "why not simply wound him?"  or "why did they fire multiple shots?"

mongbiohazard: I wonder what the best thing to shout would be then? Maybe just start barking orders like a cop does... Instead of "Stop or I'll shoot!" maybe a very aggressive "Get down on the ground NOW farkface!" Maybe trigger am instinctive learned response, evoking run ins with the police. Did the paper you read give any hints as to what DID seem to work to not end in a shooting?


My inclination would be "Stop!  Your next step will be your last!"

Misconduc: Few years ago a new law passed in Florida, if you are with someone who commits a felony, you get charged too. Sure enough 3 village idiots tried to break into a man's home, he warned and the kid still tried to climb through the window and got shot. The other two kids were charged with murder.
You would think this curbs violence, apparently not since the crime rate has "barely" dropped 5% since this. Fact is criminals will continue to be criminals, guns control this fact.


The felony murder rule.  Many places have it.
 
2014-03-02 09:55:31 PM  
The problem is however, you can say bad guys can't have guns, they laugh and show you their guns.

The best part of "gun control"
 
2014-03-02 09:55:41 PM  

gja: Lorelle: anuran: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Decent used revolver: $200
Bars on windows: Easily a couple thousand bucks.
Moving: Tens of thousands, especially since you'll have to sell your high-crime home for a loss.

Replacing broken windows eight times isn't costly??

Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

BTW, window panes are about 5-10 bucks. Moving is just a tad more (like 10000 times more at least).


I don't care about your argument - the intruder had it coming.

I do want to know where you're getting home window panes for only $10. That's an incredible deal!
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:56:25 PM  

doglover: Honestly, I have it on good authority(my own) that scalds suck.

Like... really suck.

If they could make a boiling water super-soaker, that would be godawful scary but great for home defense.


In many states you would be ruined at LEAST financially via lawsuits for undue harm and such.
You might wanna rethink that.
 
2014-03-02 09:57:23 PM  

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?


They had bars on them.
 
2014-03-02 09:58:37 PM  

Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.


STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?


It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:58:40 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: gja: Lorelle: anuran: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Decent used revolver: $200
Bars on windows: Easily a couple thousand bucks.
Moving: Tens of thousands, especially since you'll have to sell your high-crime home for a loss.

Replacing broken windows eight times isn't costly??

Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

BTW, window panes are about 5-10 bucks. Moving is just a tad more (like 10000 times more at least).

I don't care about your argument - the intruder had it coming.

I do want to know where you're getting home window panes for only $10. That's an incredible deal!


Buy the glass and do the glazing yourself. The glass is cheap at local places for simple panes. Right-angle cuts and nothing bigger than 2'x3'.
Single layer is cheap stuff.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 09:59:26 PM  

Farkage: gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

They had bars on them.


Pity, that.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:03:01 PM  

Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.


I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.
 
2014-03-02 10:03:12 PM  

doglover: Lorelle: doglover: Oh heavens to mergatroid! Somebody broke into my home and pointed a gun at me 29 years ago! Oh the horror!

shiat happens. Get some therapy.

It's the fight or flight response, and you chose flight. There's another option. Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

But this doesn't mean the skunk just walks around waiting for a chance to spray. They're actually just cool little guys who bumble through the forest looking for munchies and lady skunks. If they could, they'd go their whole life without spraying. But if push comes to shove, they can push back.

And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

When one faces a serious threat to one's life, one has a tendency to remember it, even decades later. Therapy helps in the short-term, but the memory lasts forever. And yes, I did think about it yesterday, but I didn't spend the entire day dwelling on it.

And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him); I fought back with what was available.

I don't have a pet skunk, but there are several cans of chicken soup in my humble abode (among other, more dangerous things). :)

Honestly, I have it on good authority(my own) that scalds suck.

Like... really suck.

If they could make a boiling water super-soaker, that would be godawful scary but great for home defense.


Yeah, while you're at it you can chuck some paint cans on string at them, heat up doorknobs, and sic your tarantula at them. That will really show those Wet Bandits!

I'll stick to cutting the pie with my carbine.
 
2014-03-02 10:05:50 PM  

doglover:  Honestly, I have it on good authority(my own) that scalds suck.

Like... really suck.

If they could make a boiling water super-soaker, that would be godawful scary ...


After seeing pics of the lady who got scalded by McDonald's coffee...ugh.


Farkage: gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

They had bars on them.


No, the window didn't have bars on it. The next apartment I moved into was a second-story unit. No bars, and no break-ins, either.
 
2014-03-02 10:07:49 PM  

Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.


*warning: threadjack*

Groundbreaking legendary DJ Porky Chedwick died today, age 96. Well worth a google.

/part of my farkie for you says "music" so I picked you, Lorelle
//sorry?
 
2014-03-02 10:10:10 PM  

gja: I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.


Me, too! It's pretty boring here right now...the ground is still wet from a few days' worth of rain and the Oscars aren't on yet. Worst of all, the neighbor who uses medical marijuana apparently hasn't been toking up today. The wonderful aroma usually wafts up here by this time of the day (well, MOSTLY wonderful...sometimes said pot smells like skunk).
 
2014-03-02 10:10:22 PM  
Can we please get a Government Enforcer to take this woman's gun away so that she can be a good little victim like she's supposed to? I'm sick of people like this who unapologetically oppress underprivileged folks who were just about to turn their lives around.
 
2014-03-02 10:11:52 PM  

BigNumber12: Can we please get a Government Enforcer to take this woman's gun away so that she can be a good little victim like she's supposed to? I'm sick of people like this who unapologetically oppress underprivileged folks who were just about to turn their lives around.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2014-03-02 10:12:38 PM  

Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.


Despite what you are implying, the majority of the time that a firearm is used to stop a criminal (by non-police), the weapon is not fired.  Most criminals have enough brain power to understand the risk of going up against someone who is armed.  The number of crimes prevented is believed to exceed 2 million a year, though the exact number will never be known because many of these situations go unreported.  Sometimes that's because the police will automatically confiscate the firearm and have a nasty habit of not giving them back.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:13:12 PM  

BigNumber12: Can we please get a Government Enforcer to take this woman's gun away so that she can be a good little victim like she's supposed to? I'm sick of people like this who unapologetically oppress underprivileged folks who were just about to turn their lives around.


Hey now! Governor Cuomo is working on just that effort here in NY.
 
2014-03-02 10:15:56 PM  

lindalouwho: *warning: threadjack*

Groundbreaking legendary DJ Porky Chedwick died today, age 96. Well worth a google.

/part of my farkie for you says "music" so I picked you, Lorelle
//sorry?


:(

I actually have heard of the guy...he ranks up there with Wolfman Jack and L.A. legends Huggie Boy and Art Laboe.
 
gad
2014-03-02 10:16:33 PM  

doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!


Absolutely. They are also good for suicides, murder suicides and accidental shootings of those kids in the house. And far more of them are killed than those people breaking in your house.
 
2014-03-02 10:18:02 PM  
doglover:
Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

Dang!

That, my friend, is absolute, unconditional, 200 proof, pure eloquence.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:19:03 PM  

Lorelle: (well, MOSTLY wonderful...sometimes said pot smells like skunk).


Uh, that is called "dank", kiddo. Usually indicative of the upper THC percentages strains. Actually quite desirable, especially to one using it medicinally. Less needed to smoke or relief=less smoking=less exposure to inhaled smoke.
That person would be better served with a vaporizer. No products of combustion inhaled.

/no, i do not smoke
//yes, i am an engineer and all things tech interest me, including the above tech
///i also invest in developing tech, and see e-cigs and vape units that sell well as vehicles for companies to be M&A targets so...$$$$
 
2014-03-02 10:21:09 PM  
Epic thread .  Lots of favorited Farkers. today. I do have to give Lorelle  credit for standing her ground here . Too bad the rest of the Fark trolls never bothered to show up : (
 
2014-03-02 10:24:39 PM  

gad: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

Absolutely. They are also good for suicides, murder suicides and accidental shootings of those kids in the house. And far more of them are killed than those people breaking in your house.


Suicides are a personal choice.
I grew up in a home with guns, no fatalities. No kids anyway.
Not planning on killing anyone, so no murder suicides this week.

Sounds like you're just a horrible person who wants to harm other people and you're afraid of that and you've attached those fears to an inanimate object as a symbol of the darkness in your own soul and it tears you up inside that sane people can pick up a gun and not hear the voices you must if that's honestly your opinion.
 
2014-03-02 10:25:02 PM  

gja: Lorelle: (well, MOSTLY wonderful...sometimes said pot smells like skunk).

Uh, that is called "dank", kiddo. Usually indicative of the upper THC percentages strains. Actually quite desirable, especially to one using it medicinally. Less needed to smoke or relief=less smoking=less exposure to inhaled smoke.
That person would be better served with a vaporizer. No products of combustion inhaled.

/no, i do not smoke
//yes, i am an engineer and all things tech interest me, including the above tech
///i also invest in developing tech, and see e-cigs and vape units that sell well as vehicles for companies to be M&A targets so...$$$$


When that dude smokes bad weed, the first thought that comes to mind is, "Oh shiat...now I have to close the windows."

RottenEggs: Epic thread .  Lots of favorited Farkers. today. I do have to give Lorelle  credit for standing her ground here . Too bad the rest of the Fark trolls never bothered to show up : (


So I've noticed.  SOMEONE has to keep things lively around here. I'm pissed that the others aren't doing their fair share.
 
2014-03-02 10:25:03 PM  

gad: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

Absolutely. They are also good for suicides, murder suicides and accidental shootings of those kids in the house. And far more of them are killed than those people breaking in your house.


2/10
 
2014-03-02 10:26:23 PM  

BigNumber12: Can we please get a Government Enforcer to take this woman's gun away so that she can be a good little victim like she's supposed to? I'm sick of people like this who unapologetically oppress underprivileged folks who were just about to turn their lives around.


Wow, you sure did wallop that strawman. I bet he'll never question your intellectual capacity again.
 
2014-03-02 10:26:25 PM  

Dimensio: the ha ha guy: /I've been called both a gun-grabber and an NRA shill. In the same thread. For the same comment...

Speculation: in a single post you endorsed both universal background checks while rejecting a ban on scary-looking rifles (due to the presence of handgrips that stick out from the stock) as ineffective.


Not even that, I speculated on the effectiveness of a full ban and confiscation of everything but bolt-action rifles. (I don't support bans or confiscation at all, I was just throwing the question out there for the uber-libs)

The gun-nuts rightfully called me a gun-grabber, but quite a few of the self-proclaimed liberals in that thread were unwilling to settle for anything less than a total confiscation of anything and everything that shoots any type of projectile.
 
2014-03-02 10:26:28 PM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Are you even attempting to suggest a gun is as expensive as moving???

Depends...you can get family and friends to help you move.


And since your point is obviously to move to a safer place, the home prices will surely be the same in a better neighborhood, right?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:27:00 PM  

RottenEggs: Epic thread .  Lots of favorited Farkers. today. I do have to give Lorelle  credit for standing her ground here . Too bad the rest of the Fark trolls never bothered to show up : (


They knew better. There is only so much derp you can allow to run in your veins before it causes spontaneous faker combustion.

I do have to give Lorelle  credit for standing her ground here .
Oooooh, I don't think that's a analogy she will like. You just Zimmed her.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:28:47 PM  

the ha ha guy: but quite a few of the self-proclaimed liberals in that thread were unwilling to settle for anything less than a total confiscation of anything and everything that shoots any type of projectile.


Welp, there goes my penis!
 
2014-03-02 10:28:57 PM  
"Someone breaks into your house, you Kill him! That way there's only One side to the story." - G.Gordon Liddy
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:30:05 PM  

gja: RottenEggs: Epic thread .  Lots of favorited Farkers. today. I do have to give Lorelle  credit for standing her ground here . Too bad the rest of the Fark trolls never bothered to show up : (

They knew better. There is only so much derp you can allow to run in your veins before it causes spontaneous faRker combustion.

I do have to give Lorelle  credit for standing her ground here .
Oooooh, I don't think that's a analogy she will like. You just Zimmed her.


/FTFM
 
2014-03-02 10:30:32 PM  

quantum_jellyroll: doglover:
Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

Dang!

That, my friend, is absolute, unconditional, 200 proof, pure eloquence.


I don't know if
I'm comin' or goin',
if it's them or me.
All I know is
Willie Neslon
sure smokes killer weed.
 
2014-03-02 10:33:15 PM  

Loren: My inclination would be "Stop! Your next step will be your last!"


I suspect that a good number of people would take that as "disrespect" and would feel compelled to put you in your place.
 
2014-03-02 10:36:53 PM  

veedeevadeevoodee: [media.giphy.com image 140x140]

/ no trial, no reports to file


Maybe next time you'll try reading the article.  I wouldn't wager on it, but it is a good suggestion.
 
2014-03-02 10:37:30 PM  
I'm going to go ahead and vote that someone breaking into a house is in fact news.
 
2014-03-02 10:45:29 PM  

FnkyTwn: If she's white she'll be plastered all over Fox for the next week. (especially if the dead guy is black)

If she's black this story won't make it past Monday. (Tuesday if the dead guy is black)

Conservatives like guns about as equally as they dislike the idea of blacks with guns.


If she's white, you can expect Al Sharpton to march on Detroit and demand she go to trial, and MSNBC will call her a racist that gunned down an unarmed 6 year old black boy.

See? I can make stupid generalizations, too.
 
2014-03-02 10:47:01 PM  

doglover: Dimensio: doglover: And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

While I am uncertain as to my full opinion of your analogy of squirrels and skunks, I can state that I prefer it to the analogy of sheep and sheepdogs.

Because sheep and sheepdogs doesn't work.

Sheep will nig a farker up if you cross between ewes and lambs. Sheepdogs will, absent commands, probably befriend anyone with a piece of bacon or two.

Fight or flight, on the other hand... that works great. Both can save you, both have pros and cons. Ideally, you have both, but not everyone does.


Somebody doesn't understand how sheepdogs work.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:47:14 PM  

FnkyTwn: If she's white she'll be plastered all over Fox for the next week. (especially if the dead guy is black)

If she's black this story won't make it past Monday. (Tuesday if the dead guy is black)

Conservatives like guns about as equally as they dislike the idea of blacks with guns.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-02 10:50:22 PM  

TerminalEchoes: See? I can make stupid generalizations, too.


Sure, but the rest of us know how to  stop.
 
2014-03-02 10:52:00 PM  
For all the 'bars on the windows' comments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8v3F1n8E-c

/SFW
//i think
///trying to sing it in my head...
 
2014-03-02 10:56:19 PM  
Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.
 
2014-03-02 10:57:14 PM  

cig-mkr: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?
She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.


Burglars and home invaders have a habit of victimizing the poor. Especially if the perpetrator is on something. They don't usually case a place or really care if there's anything valuable. Plus everyone is assuming that the guy was a burglar. He could've been a rapist or some other type of whack job.
 
2014-03-02 10:58:47 PM  
Between this and the recent mass stabbing in China (27+ dead) it's going to be rough week for the anti gun nuts.
 
2014-03-02 11:01:01 PM  
She should do what I do, and just leave a bunch of vertical sharpened sticks coated in feces under each window. If they make it past that, I have a baseball bat coated in feces ready to go. I'm not some scaredy cat who needs to spend his hard earned money on a gun. I just make my own weapons out of common household items and feces when the moment arises that I need them.
 
2014-03-02 11:03:50 PM  

gja: Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?
Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:


She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.
 
2014-03-02 11:05:28 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: doglover:
Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

People often forget that there's a white area in Detroit (or just outside it?) that's quite uhh... white and safe.
I don't know why they would live in or near Detroit, but it's pretty normal from what I've heard.


Indian Village. Friend's parents lived there.

Or hipsters/the new yuppies in midtown and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Indian Village is a weird, weird place.
 
2014-03-02 11:07:38 PM  

gad: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

Absolutely. They are also good for suicides, murder suicides and accidental shootings of those kids in the house. And far more of them are killed than those people breaking in your house.


Except that 99.9% of the time a gun is used to repel an intruder, nobody is killed. So useless Kellerman stat is useless.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 11:08:48 PM  

mschwenk: gja: Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?
Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:

She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.


I agree, and know that is so. However I was examining only the concept of said warning shot (or any warning of any type) to be incitement for the intruder to further advance or do so more ardently. And that those actions might be deemed to be encouragement.
And that, I think, is utter rubbish.
 
2014-03-02 11:08:58 PM  

cig-mkr: genner: cig-mkr: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?
She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.

Probably wanted to steal her gun.....

And wound up on the wrong end of that deal.


Well, she at least gave him some ammo
 
2014-03-02 11:14:18 PM  
Somehow, I'm OK with this!
 
2014-03-02 11:17:38 PM  

gja: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: gja: Lorelle: anuran: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Decent used revolver: $200
Bars on windows: Easily a couple thousand bucks.
Moving: Tens of thousands, especially since you'll have to sell your high-crime home for a loss.

Replacing broken windows eight times isn't costly??

Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

BTW, window panes are about 5-10 bucks. Moving is just a tad more (like 10000 times more at least).

I don't care about your argument - the intruder had it coming.

I do want to know where you're getting home window panes for only $10. That's an incredible deal!

Buy the glass and do the glazing yourself. The glass is cheap at local places for simple panes. Right-angle cuts and nothing bigger than 2'x3'.
Single layer is cheap stuff.


This. The tools for cutting glass and doing glazing used to be a standard part of a home tool kit. Single pane glass is extremely common in poor areas.
 
2014-03-02 11:25:09 PM  

clarksvegas: basic hi point c-9 (tiny 9mm bullet) goes for about $189 retail


I try to avoid caliber wars - 9mm is 'good enough'.  It's when you start getting below 9mm that you start losing serious stopping power - .380 ACP, for example,  I think is a bit puny for stopping a man.

As always, the ability to hit your target trumps caliber.  A hit with a .22 is going to do more to stop somebody than a miss with a .50.
 
2014-03-02 11:25:19 PM  

Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.


so, a legal shoot saves the tax payer the cost of prosecuting the assailant if he charges in to a deadly hail of bullets.  Go to know.
 
2014-03-02 11:27:09 PM  

RottenEggs: Why didn't she call the police and run from the house or retreat to the farthest room in the house ? The police would have been there sooner or later . Why hang around when she could have clearly gotten away ? This could have been avoided . I bet this responsible gun owner creamed her jeans at the chance to kill someone

/Trollin


Yeah, When a roof starts leaking on a home, some people yell and scream before calling a roofer - others just take a few minutes to patch it themselves. Which is the better option?
 
2014-03-02 11:27:38 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.


Amazing now rethuglicans, liburtdarians, blood drinkers and herp-a-derp boostrappy types who can almost count to potatoe are incapable of reading. This thread has been full of people to the left of Ivan the Terrible. Their usual comment has been "Nice shot."

But that doesn't fit The Narrative. There isn't an opportunity to screech "Fartbongo! Benghazi! Clinton got a blowjob! Wharrrr-garble!" So in typical echo chamber conservative style you just ignore it and go on with your incessant braying.
 
2014-03-02 11:30:29 PM  

gja: mschwenk: gja: Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?
Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:

She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.

I agree, and know that is so. However I was examining only the concept of said warning shot (or any warning of any type) to be incitement for the intruder to further advance or do so more ardently. And that those actions might be deemed to be encouragement.
And that, I think, is utter rubbish.


I'd agree in most cases. Except when someone is on certain types of drugs.

One of the problems with studies is that they tend to assume that a particular answer is the correct answer in all situations. Researchers tend to overlook how different every situation is.
 
2014-03-02 11:31:38 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.


It's really demeaning to call people libtards, inferring somehow they are liberal democrats.  Call them what they are, Socialists.
 
2014-03-02 11:47:36 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: jayphat: She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"

I was thinking something on the order of little kill-markers - perhaps cartoon thieves - under the windows and beside the doors.


Ah. You're thinking of the equivalent of this:
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-02 11:51:23 PM  

way south: hardinparamedic: Wait. Wait.  I KNOW WHY YOU WANT A HI POINT.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

You can be all high speed and tacticool on a budget, Yo!

That model is actually the best thing hi-point makes,  and pistol carbines aren't usually that affordable.
...But they are more accurate, easy to handle, get better range. Perfect for home defense.

/Mother of three used one to chase off some hoodlums a few headlines ago.
/If kel-tec would get its act together, they'd be selling alot more sub-2000's in that catagory.


I have a SU-16 that is one more lock-up away from getting thrown into a chipper-shredder.

Never really wanted an AR but now that I have one I am embarrassed at how much time I have spent beating on that Kel-Tec with a hammer.
 
Rat
2014-03-03 12:04:19 AM  
Saved him from paying taxes on all that stolen stuff.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html#en_US_2013_publink10001 7 2141
 
2014-03-03 12:06:38 AM  

WelldeadLink: Benevolent Misanthrope: jayphat: She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"

I was thinking something on the order of little kill-markers - perhaps cartoon thieves - under the windows and beside the doors.

Ah. You're thinking of the equivalent of this:
[i.imgur.com image 850x382]


Yes.  Exactly - except with pictures of thieves instead of bombs.
 
2014-03-03 12:14:23 AM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


There are some cities (not sure if Detroit is one of them) that make it against the law to have burglar bars on your home.
 
2014-03-03 12:16:04 AM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.


All window coverings, including bars, are required by law to be able to be opened from the inside.
 
2014-03-03 12:17:22 AM  

Rat: Saved him from paying taxes on all that stolen stuff.

™ http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html#en_US_2013_publink10001 7 2141


And this ought to be mentioned, too:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Whistleblower-Informant-Award

Live in a neighborhood full of thieving, drug dealing dirtbags - and the local cops turn a blind eye? Turn it into an opportunity!
 
2014-03-03 12:26:44 AM  

hardinparamedic: Livinglush: So where are these comparison reports? I would love to see them and I will gladly change my opinion.

[www.thetruthaboutguns.com image 850x637]

You might like it. I don't. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, either. And you can google the reports of the C9 Blowing up in people's hands if you want to read them.

I'll stick to my Walther/S&W


Almost always being ammo related and the shooter didn't catch the squib. You can punch an any model of firearm and find a horror story on Google. I saw a 1911 blow up for that reason, pics at least were on InGunOwners' site.  Also the last big recall on firearms was S&W, a big name out there.
 
2014-03-03 12:42:11 AM  

duffblue: Ah Detroit: what 50 years of liberal leadership gets you.


No, Ann Arbor is an example of  actual liberal government in action, and it happens to fall on "Best Places To Live In The United States" lists all the time.

Detroit is an example of what happens when a huge industry is the only major employer in an area, and then decides to pack up and move all the jobs to Mexico, Asia, or Canada because the American market for that industry failed to diversify and follow the examples of their competition in the far east.

As for government in Detroit, the people who run for office there aren't Republicans OR Democrats; They're just plain corrupt. Some might qualify as plutocrats, but I think most of them are simply opportunists who realize they have the opportunity to get elected (because nobody decent wants to live there and run for office) and exploit the position to steal from the city and the people. The entire Detroit government has been loaded with criminals who put a "D" after their name because it was what worked in that town. If you'd like, we can compile a list of cities and towns in the southern United States with equally corrupt governments comprised of people with an "R" after their name. There are more of those than there are of the other.

You want an example of ACTUAL liberal leadership and government? It's called Denmark. And they're doing more than OK with all three of their major parties embracing some variety of liberalism. Most of the Scandinavian region is far more liberal than Detroit ever was, and it's one of the nicest places on Earth to live.

So you keep spewing that lie. Those of us who actually lived in Detroit know the truth, and those who live in actual liberal nations and cities can easily disprove your theories.

But if you wanna talk about some of the conservative towns in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, etc...
 
2014-03-03 12:54:34 AM  
I love how when you suggest that maybe making sure crazy people don't get their hands on a gun or keeping your gun away from your stupid kid means that you're saying that there are no legitimate times to use a weapon and they should all be banned.
 
2014-03-03 01:02:57 AM  

Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.


Ya there are several laws on the books that protect armed people who break into your home with intent to commit  further crimes, for instance... Name a single farking one you idiot troll.

I've seen people sued for "booby trapping" their unoccupied business, but not a single law or case in which someone broke into a home was injured by the home owner and won. It's never happened. You're an idiot.
 
2014-03-03 01:12:30 AM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.

Ya there are several laws on the books that protect armed people who break into your home with intent to commit  further crimes, for instance... Name a single farking one you idiot troll.

I've seen people sued for "booby trapping" their unoccupied business, but not a single law or case in which someone broke into a home was injured by the home owner and won. It's never happened. You're an idiot.


Once read about a guy who broke into a home, got stuck in the garage for two days, not only went free, but successfully sued the homeowners.  I'll see if I can find the story.
 
2014-03-03 01:18:14 AM  

way south: /If kel-tec would get its act together, they'd be selling alot more sub-2000's in that catagory.


They're never going to get their act together.  I've given up on them as anything other than a novelty gun maker.  Hell, I got rid of my P3AT and bought an LCP because the fit and finish was so much better.  Dumped a P11, and have stopped looking for an RFB, PMR-30, or a KSG, not to mention the Sub-2000 I tried to pick up forever.
 
2014-03-03 01:20:43 AM  

RatMaster999: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.

Ya there are several laws on the books that protect armed people who break into your home with intent to commit  further crimes, for instance... Name a single farking one you idiot troll.

I've seen people sued for "booby trapping" their unoccupied business, but not a single law or case in which someone broke into a home was injured by the home owner and won. It's never happened. You're an idiot.

Once read about a guy who broke into a home, got stuck in the garage for two days, not only went free, but successfully sued the homeowners.  I'll see if I can find the story.


This might be the one I was thinking of:

Man gets stuck in garage after burglary, sues family:
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish.

http://besteverawards.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/most-ridiculous-lawsu it s-ever-ever/

However, a quick poke around shows this is fake.  Guess I was wrong.


There's also this bullshiat:
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners- se lf-defense-against-intruders/
 
2014-03-03 01:28:15 AM  

BayouOtter: NO.
HiPoint pistols and rifles are
A) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.
B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALL
C) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.


This. You don't have to pay that much more for a quality firearm, you're not saving anything if it has a much higher chance to fail when you need it to work. Even a surplus pistol like a Makarov would be a far better choice.
 
2014-03-03 01:29:57 AM  

doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!


AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.


The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.


Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.
 
2014-03-03 01:31:47 AM  

SCUBA_Archer: Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.


There isn't any such doubt. Nobody is saying this homeowner did wrong. What the fark is wrong with you? What are you responding to?
 
2014-03-03 01:43:04 AM  

LavenderWolf: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.

The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.


And you need to actually read a history book that wasn't written for the public school system.

Also, 48 Laws of Power. That's required reading to have a valid opinion in politics.
 
2014-03-03 01:57:49 AM  

doglover: LavenderWolf: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.

The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.

And you need to actually read a history book that wasn't written for the public school system.

Also, 48 Laws of Power. That's required reading to have a valid opinion in politics.


I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.

Right now, gun owner ship in the USA is 100% secure. A classroom full of dead kids isn't enough to sway the American population. Right now, the people constantly accused of trying/wanting to take your guns have absolutely zero interest in doing so.

Past gun confiscation by others is completely irrelevant to people who don't share that viewpoint at all. Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory. Dirty librul here, huge fan of guns. Almost everyone I know likes guns. In fact I don't know a single person who thinks that gun ownership should be illegal.

Who are you arguing against? Who is trying to take your guns? Why do you attribute this "gun grabber" attitude to everyone left of you on the political spectrum? I am of course referring to both you and the other person I originally quoted.
 
2014-03-03 02:00:59 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: There is no difference between this incident and Trayvon.  Bad person got shot trying to injure innocent person.


Because Trayvon was breaking into houses when Zimmerman shot him, right?

What's the point in this sort of stupid trolling?  You just try and say the stupidest thing you can come up with, so everyone will know you're an idiot?  I really don't get it.
 
2014-03-03 02:30:29 AM  
LavenderWolf: It's thirty-forty years of Pavlovian conditioning by the NRA and the GOP. "Them librul commies is comin' to TAKE YOR GUNS!!! Unless you send us your prayers and $500 they'll leave you defenseless and filthy Negroes will violate our Precious White Women"
 
2014-03-03 03:01:39 AM  
I do not own a firearm, but believe in the right to own one and do not think that right should be taken just because a few criminals ruin it for the rest of you. No one talks about taking everyone's knives when people get stabbed, no one talks about taking everyone's cars when someone gets run over. One thing in this thread has me a bit weary, all the posts dealing with how ugly a brand of gun is. Does your desire for weapons come from self-defense, or is it a fashion accessory? Are you trying to defend your property, or playing a game of dress up Barbie? I hope you feel safer because of a pretty gun, when I buy one it will be for function, not because it matches my shoes.
 
2014-03-03 03:08:16 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: I do not own a firearm, but believe in the right to own one and do not think that right should be taken just because a few criminals ruin it for the rest of you. No one talks about taking everyone's knives when people get stabbed, no one talks about taking everyone's cars when someone gets run over. One thing in this thread has me a bit weary, all the posts dealing with how ugly a brand of gun is. Does your desire for weapons come from self-defense, or is it a fashion accessory? Are you trying to defend your property, or playing a game of dress up Barbie? I hope you feel safer because of a pretty gun, when I buy one it will be for function, not because it matches my shoes.


Does looks have anything to do with what car you drive?


Just because I can use it as a way to defend myself doesn't mean it can't also be viewed as a piece of art.
 
2014-03-03 03:25:04 AM  

anuran: LavenderWolf: It's thirty-forty years of Pavlovian conditioning by the NRA and the GOP. "Them librul commies is comin' to TAKE YOR GUNS!!! Unless you send us your prayers and $500 they'll leave you defenseless and filthy Negroes will violate our Precious White Women"


And every damn time someone uses a firearm appropriately - something I think very few people have a problem with - the victims of that conditioning flock to the internet to proclaim to all the lands that the noble, persecuted gun-owning portion of the population has scored another victory against the EVIL GUN GRABBERS.

It's like... "Dude. Let's go to the range and then get drunk. You might realize how pro-firearm liberal people really are.
 
2014-03-03 03:25:39 AM  
"
 
2014-03-03 03:29:58 AM  

LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.



Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.
 
2014-03-03 03:37:58 AM  

doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.


You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.
 
2014-03-03 03:40:27 AM  
How do you know if a Republican owns a gun? Don't worry, they'll tell you. Over and over again. And damn you for opposing his right to do so, whether you actually oppose that right or not.

How do you know if a Democrat owns a gun? You don't...
 
2014-03-03 03:45:09 AM  

LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.
 
2014-03-03 03:50:38 AM  

RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.



Oh, and this...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-0788-c_magazin e_ declaration.pdf
 
2014-03-03 04:00:49 AM  

RatMaster999: RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.


Oh, and this...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-0788-c_magazin e_ declaration.pdf


Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think the line should be drawn farther up the chain of lethality, still others think no line need be drawn at all.

I'd agree that the "Assault weapons" ban is stupid - especially as is. This is not a "major thing" nor do I think it is leading to any kind of gun grabber fantasy Red Dawn scenario. Over the last few years, gun ownership in general has had obstacles reduced, not increased, and don't pretend otherwise. The weapons industry is enjoying a boom. What are you pretending for? We won. We are still winning.
 
2014-03-03 04:18:19 AM  
LavenderWolf:
Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think the line should be drawn farther up the chain of lethality, still others think no line need be drawn at all.

I'd agree that the "Assault weapons" ban is stupid - especially as is. This is not a "major thing" nor do I think it is leading to any kind of gun grabber fantasy Red Dawn scenario. Over the last few years, gun ownership in general has had obstacles reduced, not increased, and don't pretend otherwise. The weapons industry is enjoying a boom. What are you pretending for? We won. We are still winning
...

And even though we've won - Heller, first President in years to remove carry restrictions (Obama), the rise of SYG aka "Kill the Witnesses" - fewer homes per capita have firearms.
 
2014-03-03 04:23:49 AM  

anuran: LavenderWolf:
Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think the line should be drawn farther up the chain of lethality, still others think no line need be drawn at all.

I'd agree that the "Assault weapons" ban is stupid - especially as is. This is not a "major thing" nor do I think it is leading to any kind of gun grabber fantasy Red Dawn scenario. Over the last few years, gun ownership in general has had obstacles reduced, not increased, and don't pretend otherwise. The weapons industry is enjoying a boom. What are you pretending for? We won. We are still winning.  ...

And even though we've won - Heller, first President in years to remove carry restrictions (Obama), the rise of SYG aka "Kill the Witnesses" - fewer homes per capita have firearms.


Not everyone is interested in owning guns. I think the "omg they're grabbing our guns" crowd is partly to blame. They have a lot of people convinced that gun ownership involves a lot of bullshiat even though in most places in the US it's less legally complex than buying a used car.
 
2014-03-03 04:28:58 AM  

LavenderWolf: You're not addressing anything I am saying at all.


Because it's not worth addressing. We're here to yell at each other and post dick jokes in between sessions of boredom at a dead end job. It's the internet.
 
2014-03-03 04:34:14 AM  

doglover: LavenderWolf: You're not addressing anything I am saying at all.

Because it's not worth addressing. We're here to yell at each other and post dick jokes in between sessions of boredom at a dead end job. It's the internet.


Posting vague statements about your gun grabber boogeyman and how other people need to learn history before talking are not the actions of someone who wasn't trying to make a serious statement. You're just at the "Deny, distract, distance" point in the Red Dawn gun nut playbook.
 
2014-03-03 05:05:58 AM  

caeroe: hardinparamedic: Livinglush: So where are these comparison reports? I would love to see them and I will gladly change my opinion.

[www.thetruthaboutguns.com image 850x637]

You might like it. I don't. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, either. And you can google the reports of the C9 Blowing up in people's hands if you want to read them.

I'll stick to my Walther/S&W

Almost always being ammo related and the shooter didn't catch the squib. You can punch an any model of firearm and find a horror story on Google. I saw a 1911 blow up for that reason, pics at least were on InGunOwners' site.  Also the last big recall on firearms was S&W, a big name out there.


Hipoints are ugly, and can bite your hand (if you got huge manbearpaws and hold it wrong), but they are reliable*, fairly accurate (mostly due to outdated simple blowback design) and they don't usually blow up.

Gun snobbery only serves gun manufacturers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbvvurXmAmg Intro to HP pistols (warning: mild racism/culturalism at the end)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FoWpog5KU4 Shenanigans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkQm5TRaWE How to blow up a HiPoint C9

*as long as you get one of the 9/10 mags that actually works.
 
2014-03-03 05:10:05 AM  

LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: You're not addressing anything I am saying at all.

Because it's not worth addressing. We're here to yell at each other and post dick jokes in between sessions of boredom at a dead end job. It's the internet.

Posting vague statements about your gun grabber boogeyman and how other people need to learn history before talking are not the actions of someone who wasn't trying to make a serious statement. You're just at the "Deny, distract, distance" point in the Red Dawn gun nut playbook.


Do you like bananas?
 
2014-03-03 05:20:04 AM  

doglover: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: You're not addressing anything I am saying at all.

Because it's not worth addressing. We're here to yell at each other and post dick jokes in between sessions of boredom at a dead end job. It's the internet.

Posting vague statements about your gun grabber boogeyman and how other people need to learn history before talking are not the actions of someone who wasn't trying to make a serious statement. You're just at the "Deny, distract, distance" point in the Red Dawn gun nut playbook.

Do you like bananas?


I'm not a big fan of most fruit, to be honest. I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy. Veggies and such.
 
2014-03-03 05:37:18 AM  
teenage mutant ninja rapist:

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

I remember living in a house with barred windows for a few years in my early teens. One day my younger sister came home from school with a homework assignment to work out a fire escape plan for the house, in which the usual entrance was blocked by flames. I don't know if she got credit for the assignment or not, because there was absolutely no other way out of the house (we didn't even have a back door.)
 
2014-03-03 05:51:04 AM  

LavenderWolf: RatMaster999: RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.


Oh, and this...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-0788-c_magazin e_ declaration.pdf

Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think the line shoul ...


Except these are new regulations from Connecticut.  Less than a year old.  New York's banning magazines that hold more than a handful or rounds.  I think California is planning to try the same.  These asshats are still out there.
 
2014-03-03 06:17:23 AM  

LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: You're not addressing anything I am saying at all.

Because it's not worth addressing. We're here to yell at each other and post dick jokes in between sessions of boredom at a dead end job. It's the internet.

Posting vague statements about your gun grabber boogeyman and how other people need to learn history before talking are not the actions of someone who wasn't trying to make a serious statement. You're just at the "Deny, distract, distance" point in the Red Dawn gun nut playbook.

Do you like bananas?

I'm not a big fan of most fruit, to be honest. I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy. Veggies and such.


i.huffpost.com

This is the only firearm I own. But I'm 100% against lawyers, lawmakers, and bans in general.

New York and California are how gun laws should not work. At the same time Pennsylvania and Florida are how labor laws shouldn't work. Then we've got North Carolina and Dakota showing us how civil rights shouldn't work. If we take the worst and best part of every single state of the union, we'll find laws are the problem and freedom the solution. Where's the best place for gays? California. Why? Less regulation. Where's the best place for guns? Texas. Why? Less regulation. The list goes on, but it's the goal to reduce it as much as possible.
 
2014-03-03 06:24:37 AM  
One shot, dead!  At least she didn't waste any ammo.  That shiat's expensive any more.  She ought to sue his family to replace her $.30 caliber shell.
 
2014-03-03 07:39:33 AM  

RatMaster999: Except these are new regulations from Connecticut. Less than a year old. New York's banning magazines that hold more than a handful or rounds. I think California is planning to try the same. These asshats are still out there.


Don't forget Colorado.  Though several congrescritters received a rude shock when they were recalled as a result of their vote.
 
2014-03-03 07:50:57 AM  

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.


That's hard to prove from fark gun threads.
 
2014-03-03 07:56:57 AM  

Molavian: way south: /If kel-tec would get its act together, they'd be selling alot more sub-2000's in that catagory.

They're never going to get their act together.  I've given up on them as anything other than a novelty gun maker.  Hell, I got rid of my P3AT and bought an LCP because the fit and finish was so much better.  Dumped a P11, and have stopped looking for an RFB, PMR-30, or a KSG, not to mention the Sub-2000 I tried to pick up forever.


The subs popup on auction from time to time.  Its a much  better setup than the 995, but not worth the current markup.Kel-tec can't seem to expand fast enough and, to make it worse, they keep adding models.

What they should do (taboo as its been since the ACR farkup with magpul) is outsource production.
The sub in glock 17 has classic written all over it. Use the red lion front post as standard and maybe add a metal liner to the magwell, they'd dominate that market.
 
2014-03-03 07:59:23 AM  

RatMaster999: aNihilV10L8tr: I do not own a firearm, but believe in the right to own one and do not think that right should be taken just because a few criminals ruin it for the rest of you. No one talks about taking everyone's knives when people get stabbed, no one talks about taking everyone's cars when someone gets run over. One thing in this thread has me a bit weary, all the posts dealing with how ugly a brand of gun is. Does your desire for weapons come from self-defense, or is it a fashion accessory? Are you trying to defend your property, or playing a game of dress up Barbie? I hope you feel safer because of a pretty gun, when I buy one it will be for function, not because it matches my shoes.

Does looks have anything to do with what car you drive?


Just because I can use it as a way to defend myself doesn't mean it can't also be viewed as a piece of art.


Nice point, I never looked at it that way. The reason i agree so heartily is because no one ever buys a car on looks alone, as some sort of status symbol, its always about the weighing the specific needs of the owner. One of the first gun rules is dont show it unless you plan to use it, so who cares if it is ugly if it hopefully stays holstered? Ask the robber trying to get your wallet if your gun is pretty while defending yourself?
If i want art, i will go to a museum.
 
2014-03-03 08:12:57 AM  

Farkage: Lorelle: Penman: Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

You made a  CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

gja: Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

F*ck off, asshole.

/see, I made a CHOICE to defend myself

So as long as everybody keeps a pot of boiling chicken soup next to them at all times, they're good to go until they save up the money to move.
Got it.


Until your landlady gets wise to your con for free rent and you have to go down on her

/lil roytoy
 
2014-03-03 08:22:06 AM  

LavenderWolf: It's like... "Dude. Let's go to the range and then get drunk. You might realize how pro-firearm liberal people really are.


Pro-firearm for themselves and their security guards, that is. Anti-firearm for all other law abiding citizens, though.

/it's easy to be a fair-weather friend of the second amendment
//what matters is whether you still support the 2nd when reality isn't pretending to be a Hollywood buddy-cop action dramedy
 
2014-03-03 08:29:37 AM  

Tatterdemalian: /it's easy to be a fair-weather friend of the second amendment


It's easy to be a fair-weather friend for most rights.
 
2014-03-03 08:40:46 AM  

BayouOtter: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

NO.
HiPoint pistols and rifles are
A) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.
B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALL
C) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.


DO NOT BUY A GLOCK!

There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!!  It's an extremely dangerous gun.

You're much better off with the Hi Point.  No, they don't explode.  They're safer than the Glock.  They're less ugly than the Glock.  And they have a lifetime warranty.
 
2014-03-03 09:02:13 AM  

Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Are you even attempting to suggest a gun is as expensive as moving???

Depends...you can get family and friends to help you move.


Are you serious? Or trolling. Moving requires more than a truck. You have to have sufficient income to buy a new home. You have to have employment lined up in the new location. And most black people are confined to Detroit and a precious few other cities in Michigan. Black people can't just up and move to Bloomfield Hills or Rochester Hills or even Warren and Eastpointe. A lot of realtors would not even sell to a black family attempting to move into those areas.
 
2014-03-03 09:04:18 AM  

DarkVader: BayouOtter: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

NO.
HiPoint pistols and rifles are
A) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.
B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALL
C) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.

DO NOT BUY A GLOCK!

There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!!  It's an extremely dangerous gun.


Gosh, you're stupid. A Glock has three safeties, a trigger, firing pin, and drop safety. It does not have a thumb safety, which means the operator has to keep his finger off the trigger until he's ready to fire. You know, what he should be doing in the first place - if he's stupid enough to be dragging his fingers all over the trigger, a manual safety is going to lull him into a false sense of safety thats going to set up a negligent discharge.

You're much better off with the Hi Point.  No, they don't explode.

Yes, they do. A straight blowback design coupled with a zinc-alloy slide means that a HiPoint has a lifespan of less than 10,000 rounds, maybe as little as 2,000, maybe as little as two. They are the definition of unreliable.

They're safer than the Glock.

If you demand a manual safety, there are dozens of other guns that have manual safeties.

They're less ugly than the Glock.  And they have a lifetime warranty.

I think Glocks are pretty homely, but dogshiat looks and works better than a HiPoint. I could shiat in a box and write a big ole LIFETIME WARRANTY on the shiat, and you'll still have a box of shiat.
 
2014-03-03 09:08:48 AM  

DarkVader: There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!! It's an extremely dangerous gun.


Part of this is observation bias.  Because there's so many police departments that issue them, there's probably more Glocks out there than other handguns.

And depending on who you ask, most will tell you that the Glock has at least 3 safeties.  That funky sub-trigger lever?  That's a safety.  There's a firing pin block in the system - that's another safety.

What it lacks is a manual safety, and for that to do anything you actually have to turn it on.
 
2014-03-03 09:11:32 AM  

doglover: LavenderWolf: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.

The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.

And you need to actually read a history book that wasn't written for the public school system.

Also, 48 Laws of Power. That's required reading to have a valid opinion in politics.


"Always make those above you feel comfortably superior."

That bootlicking crap is NOT necessary to have a valid opinion about anything, except perhaps the author.
 
2014-03-03 09:17:19 AM  

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.


Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.
 
2014-03-03 09:17:37 AM  

LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.


I remember when I was 15. Good times.
 
2014-03-03 09:23:57 AM  

RatMaster999: Except these are new regulations from Connecticut.  Less than a year old.  New York's banning magazines that hold more than a handful or rounds.  I think California is planning to try the same.  These asshats are still out there.


You're not listening to him. The Democrats have never tried to take your guns. The times they did don't count because as long as you can have a single-fire rifle, you technically can still have your guns. You're delusional for not being able to see how reasonable he is being.
 
2014-03-03 09:36:22 AM  

Firethorn: DarkVader: There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!! It's an extremely dangerous gun.

Part of this is observation bias.  Because there's so many police departments that issue them, there's probably more Glocks out there than other handguns.

And depending on who you ask, most will tell you that the Glock has at least 3 safeties.  That funky sub-trigger lever?  That's a safety.  There's a firing pin block in the system - that's another safety.

What it lacks is a manual safety, and for that to do anything you actually have to turn it on.


No, those features aren't safeties.

A firing pin block is a good thing, but won't do a damn thing if something catches the trigger.  It's nice if you drop the gun, though.  But it's not a safety, it's a firing pin block.  Do I think it should be mandatory on new gun designs, sure.  But it's not a safety.

And that funky sub-trigger?  Yeah, that's not a safety.  That's the trigger.  In no way does that make the gun even the slightest bit safer.  I see no reason for it to even be there.

A "manual safety" as you call it IS a safety.  Not turning it on is highly irresponsible behavior.  Owning a gun without one is irresponsible behavior.  And manufacturing or selling a gun without one should be illegal.
 
hej
2014-03-03 09:56:15 AM  

filter: Why is it reported as fact that she warned him?


Why is it reported as fact that she shot him?
 
2014-03-03 10:20:49 AM  

varmitydog: lonerancher: I'm sorry, but if you break into my home I am not giving a warning. I have no idea what your intentions are and I am not going to risk my life to find out. I'm not going to give up the advantage of surprise and give away my position. Once I identify the person as someone that has no reason to be in the house, they are getting shot. It doesn't matter if they are armed or not. Just because they don't have a gun in their hand doesn't mean they don't have one in their waste band. Hell they could grab a lamp or many other household items and swing those as a weapon. If you aren't willing to risk your life, you should not break into someone's home. It just shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.

I agree. If you shout something at them, several things can happen, and all of them except their turning around and leaving is not in your favor. The first is that if they are armed, you are now in an even-up shoot out instead of having the drop on them. The second is that they become a moving target, much harder to hit. Why would you give up your advantage of surprise? The first sound they hear should be the gun going off.

Of course, I'm a southern country boy and the very idea of someone trying to break into my house doesn't mean danger; it means "hot damn, I get to shoot somebody!!!" Anyways it will never happen, nobody can get close to my house without the dogs howling for ten minutes.


I think it's a good idea to yell a warning. When (not if) my teenaged son tries to sneak in after curfew, I'd rather give him the chance to identify himself.
 
2014-03-03 11:09:25 AM  

umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.


A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.
 
2014-03-03 11:24:29 AM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


She should just give her landlord notice, or escrow her rent until the landlord installs bars. That is, unless she owns the house and can't sell, and she can just barely afford to pay the mortgage and heat the place. Either way, how stupid is she to live there, right?
 
2014-03-03 11:29:53 AM  

gja: Lorelle: martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.

Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.

Well whoopdyshiat for you. Last time I saw that much projection was the matinee of 'Gravity'.

You and mister "move to another place" must be screwing each other.


Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension, tard nugget!
 
2014-03-03 11:30:59 AM  

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.


I was going by what Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer tell us you're like.
 
2014-03-03 11:35:57 AM  

DarkVader: Firethorn: DarkVader: There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!! It's an extremely dangerous gun.

Part of this is observation bias.  Because there's so many police departments that issue them, there's probably more Glocks out there than other handguns.

And depending on who you ask, most will tell you that the Glock has at least 3 safeties.  That funky sub-trigger lever?  That's a safety.  There's a firing pin block in the system - that's another safety.

What it lacks is a manual safety, and for that to do anything you actually have to turn it on.

No, those features aren't safeties.

A firing pin block is a good thing, but won't do a damn thing if something catches the trigger.  It's nice if you drop the gun, though.  But it's not a safety, it's a firing pin block.  Do I think it should be mandatory on new gun designs, sure.  But it's not a safety.

And that funky sub-trigger?  Yeah, that's not a safety.  That's the trigger.  In no way does that make the gun even the slightest bit safer.  I see no reason for it to even be there.

A "manual safety" as you call it IS a safety.  Not turning it on is highly irresponsible behavior.  Owning a gun without one is irresponsible behavior.  And manufacturing or selling a gun without one should be illegal.


Booger hook off bang lever. It really is that simple.
It worked with revolvers - which don't have those silly little thumb levers.
One of the first things any decent gun safety course will tell you is "Never EVER rely on a mechanical safety to keep the gun from firing"
 
2014-03-03 11:42:14 AM  

Lorelle: doglover: Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.

For only a mere $1000's of dollars per home, and there's no other uses for them.

Meanwhile a gun is $100's and fills multiple roles in both defense, sport, and in rare cases track meets.

Then put security laminates on the windows. Cheaper than bars, and one can break the windows from the inside in case of fire.

It beats spending one's life clutching a gun 24/7, just waiting for the next break-in to occur.


You kill a couple of them and word gets around to leave you be, which is priceless.
 
2014-03-03 11:47:56 AM  

Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."


Well, he guy who broke into her house wasn't a pussy like you; she pointed the weapon at him and he kept on trying to get in.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 11:56:54 AM  

LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.



The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.
 
2014-03-03 11:58:12 AM  
Hmm, lets compare legitimate self-protection shootings with murders, suicides, 4-year-olds shooting each other, and Bubba shooting his friend while "cleaning his gun" and see which one is the more frequent occurance.
 
2014-03-03 11:58:35 AM  

AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.


Statistics: how do they work?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 11:58:44 AM  

martid4: gja: Lorelle: martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.

Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.

Well whoopdyshiat for you. Last time I saw that much projection was the matinee of 'Gravity'.

You and mister "move to another place" must be screwing each other.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension, tard nugget!


Grow up little one. Snarky comments are rife here. Get over yourself.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 12:07:28 PM  

martid4: gja: Lorelle: martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.

Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.

Well whoopdyshiat for you. Last time I saw that much projection was the matinee of 'Gravity'.

You and mister "move to another place" must be screwing each other.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension, tard nugget!


Wait a minute. I owe you an apology. L's multi-quote threw off the format. You rebutted her nonsense. I was not referencing you.
Sorry. I should have specified. Plus, you are not a dude. The person I was referencing IS.
 
2014-03-03 12:18:13 PM  

LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


What you're doing is called "back-pedaling" or moving goalposts.  You said they haven't been trying or that they have any interest in doing it.  Ask Diane Feinstein, or "The Mayors Against Illegal Guns".  Sure, none of the liberal/Democratic groups have been successful, but they sure as hell are trying.

Those "fanatical gun nuts" only preach those things because every time something happens they get on the news or start pushing bills that limit peoples' rights.  Its not the gun nuts that are causing the paranoia its Feintstein, Bloomburg, Eric Holder etc.
 
2014-03-03 12:24:07 PM  

gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.


That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.
 
2014-03-03 12:25:30 PM  

anuran:
One of the first things any decent gun safety course will tell you is "Never EVER rely on a mechanical safety to keep the gun from firing"


My gun is designed to do only two things: fire when the trigger is pulled, and not fire when the trigger is not pulled. Every mod and attachment is dedicated to enhancing the reliability of these two functions, and any "safety" that prevents it from firing when the trigger is pulled is just as carefully avoided as attachments that could allow it to fire when the trigger is not pulled.

/really, it's not that farking hard to simply NOT PULL THE TRIGGER
//and if I pull the trigger, I am in fact capable of taking full personal responsibility for any reprecussions
///though given our country's current leadership, it's easy to see why any expectation of "personal responsibility" would normally result in disappointment
 
2014-03-03 12:27:43 PM  

LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


In New York State a deadly weapon of war that is too deadly to own:
upload.wikimedia.org

In New York State a perfectly legal non-weapon of war:
cdn2.armslist.com

These laws are totally about public safety.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 12:32:47 PM  

Skeezix: gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice
.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.

That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.


Soooo, you missed my re-trolling of her? Bolded it for ya. Learn to laugh a bit. Have fun with life.

"It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots."
I don't give an damn what people think.
 
2014-03-03 12:42:12 PM  

gja: Skeezix: gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.

That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.

Soooo, you missed my re-trolling of her? Bolded it for ya. Learn to laugh a bit. Have fun with life.

"It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots."
I don't give an damn what people think.


I'm laughing, but at YOU. I've seen enough of her shiat to know how she works. She always waits until someone like you gets unhinged and starts calling her names, then she lays the smackdown on them and goes off to troll another thread.

Don't feed the troll. You only end up making yourself look like a fool.
 
2014-03-03 12:42:44 PM  

Nix Nightbird: As for government in Detroit, the people who run for office there aren't Republicans OR Democrats; They're just plain corrupt.


"No True Scotsman" fallacy.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 12:45:20 PM  

Skeezix: gja: Skeezix: gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.

That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.

Soooo, you missed my re-trolling of her? Bolded it for ya. Learn to laugh a bit. Have fun with life.

"It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots."
I don't give an damn what people think.

I'm laughing, but at YOU. I've seen enough of her shiat to know how she works. She always waits until someone like you gets unhinged and starts calling her names, then she lays the smackdown on them and goes off to troll another thread.

Don't feed the troll. You only end up making yourself look like a fool.


Not a concern here. Most who know me know I was playing here just to get a rise out of her. It worked.
I got her to curse at me. I enjoyed that. My guilty pleasure is torturing feeble-minded fools who think they can match wits.
A character flaw, I admit, but my NY-ism comes through at times.
 
2014-03-03 12:45:33 PM  
For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

The reality of this carnage versus the gun-humpers fantasy of the consequences of an armed society is pretty sickening.
 
2014-03-03 12:52:14 PM  

gja: Skeezix: gja: Skeezix: gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.

That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.

Soooo, you missed my re-trolling of her? Bolded it for ya. Learn to laugh a bit. Have fun with life.

"It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots."
I don't give an damn what people think.

I'm laughing, but at YOU. I've seen enough of her shiat to know how she works. She always waits until someone like you gets unhinged and starts calling her names, then she lays the smackdown on them and goes off to troll another thread.

Don't feed the troll. You only end up making yourself look like a fool.

Not a concern ...


She got a rise out of you first, and you're too dumb to see it.
 
2014-03-03 12:59:03 PM  

walkingtall: a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.


Liberal leaders like who?
 
2014-03-03 01:06:02 PM  

DarkVader: Firethorn: DarkVader: There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!! It's an extremely dangerous gun.

Part of this is observation bias.  Because there's so many police departments that issue them, there's probably more Glocks out there than other handguns.

And depending on who you ask, most will tell you that the Glock has at least 3 safeties.  That funky sub-trigger lever?  That's a safety.  There's a firing pin block in the system - that's another safety.

What it lacks is a manual safety, and for that to do anything you actually have to turn it on.

No, those features aren't safeties.

A firing pin block is a good thing, but won't do a damn thing if something catches the trigger.  It's nice if you drop the gun, though.  But it's not a safety, it's a firing pin block.  Do I think it should be mandatory on new gun designs, sure.  But it's not a safety.

And that funky sub-trigger?  Yeah, that's not a safety.  That's the trigger.  In no way does that make the gun even the slightest bit safer.  I see no reason for it to even be there.

A "manual safety" as you call it IS a safety.  Not turning it on is highly irresponsible behavior.  Owning a gun without one is irresponsible behavior.  And manufacturing or selling a gun without one should be illegal.


Just because you say their not safeties doesn't mean they're not...
You could easily argue the Glock has a manual safety because it will not fire without disengaging the "sub-trigger". It also does make the firearm safer as it protects from the trigger being snagged on the tips and sides and discharging.
It's really no different, in practice, than a 1911 beaver tail safety, just located on the trigger instead of the grip.
I would also kindly ask you to quit pressing your interpretations of "irresponsible behavior" onto the rest of us that know how to handle firearms safely whether they have a manual safety or not.
 
2014-03-03 01:09:00 PM  

drew46n2: gun-humpers


Why does it almost always seem the sexual stuff regarding guns comes from the anti-gun crowd?

/penis, fetish, masturbation fantasies, humpers, etc
//NTTAWWT
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 01:09:05 PM  

Skeezix: gja: Skeezix: gja: Skeezix: gja: Lorelle: Dimensio: gja: RottenEggs: twiztedjustin: Good for her.

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

STOP TRYING TO SPOIL MY FUN, DAMNIT.

gja: Lorelle: And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him

What? No windows?

It was a studio apartment with one door and one big, long window in front. The kitchenette and bathroom were in the rear.

I am enjoying this repartee immensely. It is like spit-roasting bugs on wire getting your ante up.
Too cold and out of season for fishing near me, so playing you like a trout on the end of a line will have to suffice.

BTW, if the bathroom was handy you might have tried flushing yourself. Or hiding in the shower and stopped breathing to trick him.
Of course the latter might have backfired if he was a necrophiliac.

That chick has a reputation for trolling gun threads. You stupidly fell for her shtick. Anyone can see that she played YOU, and I'll grudgingly admit that she did a pretty good job of it too. It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots.

Soooo, you missed my re-trolling of her? Bolded it for ya. Learn to laugh a bit. Have fun with life.

"It's people like you who make gun advocates look like idiots."
I don't give an damn what people think.

I'm laughing, but at YOU. I've seen enough of her shiat to know how she works. She always waits until someone like you gets unhinged and starts calling her names, then she lays the smackdown on them and goes off to troll another thread.

Don't feed the troll. You only end up making yourself look like a fool.

Not a con ...


Sure. You win ace.
 
2014-03-03 01:13:33 PM  

Hickory-smoked: walkingtall: a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.

Liberal leaders like who?


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno

"I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."
-Charles Morgan

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
 -Lenin
 
2014-03-03 01:14:50 PM  

GanjSmokr: drew46n2: gun-humpers

Why does it almost always seem the sexual stuff regarding guns comes from the anti-gun crowd?

/penis, fetish, masturbation fantasies, humpers, etc
//NTTAWWT



Why do gun-fetishists ignore the numbers of the dead and maimed while celebrating the relatively rare legitimate defensive gun use?
 
2014-03-03 01:54:51 PM  

ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: walkingtall: a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.

Liberal leaders like who?

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno


The only cite for that quote is from a 1995 issue of "Soldier of Fortune." The DoJ denies Reno ever said it.

Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

Liberals are not trying to disarm you. Obama has done absolutely nothing to grab your guns. Gun laws are not a plot by the U.N. to leave America weak and defenseless. The Queen of England is probably not an extraterrestrial lizard. Meth is not an pre-natal supplement.
 
2014-03-03 01:57:00 PM  

LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.


The Brady AWB was anything but "local" and you would know about it if you actually had been paying attention.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Nothing has happened except for when it happened. You are a joke.
 
2014-03-03 02:00:51 PM  

drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

The reality of this carnage versus the gun-humpers fantasy of the consequences of an armed society is pretty sickening.


Doesn't matter.  My firearms saved my family's lives during a home invasion.  My ex- wife and son are trained in how to handle and respect weapons.  Just because someone else is irresponsible doesn't give you or anyone else the right to eliminate my ability to defend myself.  Sorry.
 
2014-03-03 02:09:45 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.


I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you

 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.
 
2014-03-03 02:50:50 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.


And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.
 
2014-03-03 02:57:50 PM  

deadlyplatypus: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.

What you're doing is called "back-pedaling" or moving goalposts.  You said they haven't been trying or that they have any interest in doing it.  Ask Diane Feinstein, or "The Mayors Against Illegal Guns".  Sure, none of the liberal/Democratic groups have been successful, but they sure as hell are trying.

Those "fanatical gun nuts" only preach those things because every time something happens they get on the news or start pushing bills that limit peoples' rights.  Its not the gun nuts that are causing the paranoia its Feintstein, Bloomburg, Eric Holder etc.


No, I said there's been no major democratic push for "gun grabbing." Are there some Democrats who are in favour of extreme gun control? Sure. But it's not a party platform, it's not something the Democrats are doing as a group. To say the Democrats are enacting gun control legislation is like saying Republicans all strive for rape-rape legislation; factually inaccurate and disingenuous.

You realize that Feinstein, Bloomburg, and Holder are not the Democratic party, right? Public opinion massively favors the Democrats currently, and if gun grabbing were on the agenda it would've been done shortly after the school full of murdered children got in the news.

A few local regulations. Two states, so far, have been shown to have more onerous gun laws and some misguided restrictions.

Which goalpost moved, again? Be specific.
 
2014-03-03 02:58:58 PM  

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.

In New York State a deadly weapon of war that is too deadly to own:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x390]

In New York State a perfectly legal non-weapon of war:
[cdn2.armslist.com image 640x232]

These laws are totally about public safety.


So, you're upset that the law bans pistol grips and full size magazines?

Well golly, colour me surprised. Clearly this is the Red Dawn scenario.

Wolverines, gentlemen.
 
2014-03-03 03:00:02 PM  

umad: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

The Brady AWB was anything but "local" and you would know about it if you actually had been paying attention.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Nothing has happened except for when it happened. You are a joke.


So you're complaining, in 2014, about a weapons ban that expired 10 years ago?

WOLVERINES.
 
2014-03-03 03:07:39 PM  

drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?



Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year. Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.
Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.

Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.  Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year ....

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths


Are these the numbers you wanted?
 
2014-03-03 03:15:26 PM  

drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

The reality of this carnage versus the gun-humpers fantasy of the consequences of an armed society is pretty sickening.


So you think the laws should be changed and then ask other people to give you information to show why you are right that the laws should be changed?
 
2014-03-03 03:17:40 PM  

BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?


Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year. Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.
Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.

Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.  Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year ....

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?


Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.
 
2014-03-03 03:22:27 PM  

LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.


Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.
 
2014-03-03 03:36:14 PM  

BayouOtter: LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.

Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.


Don't you know?  "Common sense" trumps "facts and figures".
 
2014-03-03 03:44:53 PM  

BayouOtter: LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.

Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.


Your data fails to take into account that a "defensive firearm use" only counts if an aggressor is killed.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 03:55:37 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.


Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLz
My links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.
Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....
 
2014-03-03 04:12:06 PM  

ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you
 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.


Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.
 
2014-03-03 04:16:57 PM  

Hickory-smoked: ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you
 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.

Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.


So you're okay with voter I.D.s?

They aren't taking anybodies right to vote away but to hear the left tell it it's a vast conspiracy to take away the right to vote.

Is that also a persecution complex?
 
2014-03-03 05:04:25 PM  

gja: You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.


If it's a legitimate second amendment violation, Congress has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
 
2014-03-03 05:09:10 PM  

BayouOtter: LavenderWolf: BayouOtter: drew46n2: For every defensive gun use how many murders, suicides, "accidental discharges," or "found" gun incidents involving children are there?

55,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year using lowest, most conservative estimates
30,127=10,129 Firearm Murders + 19,392 Suicides + 606 Accidental Firearm deaths

Are these the numbers you wanted?

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.

Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Until you do, the numbers stand on their own merits.


The numbers are bald-faced lies on their own merits.

You don't always have to know the truth to spot a lie. This is one of those times. By those statistics, on average, a person will have some 20-60 firearm self-defense incidents in their lifetimes. Ludicrous.
 
2014-03-03 05:12:14 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.

Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLz
My links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.
Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....


Really?  I'll just quote someone else who makes the point better than I.

"Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex. "

The people crowing about gun rights in this thread? Persecution complex, plain and simple. This is what I was talking about.

If you have a specific issue, limited in scope, and don't crow from the highest rooftop about how they're coming to take your guns, stop arguing against me. We have no beef. I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.
 
2014-03-03 05:17:03 PM  
LavenderWolf:
The numbers are bald-faced lies on their own merits.

You don't always have to know the truth to spot a lie. This is one of those times. By those statistics, on average, a person will have some 20-60 firearm self-defense incidents in their lifetimes. Ludicrous.


You wouldn't know truth is if it bit you on the face while everyone screamed "That Truth is biting LavenderWolf! Call Truth Control!"
 
2014-03-03 05:17:59 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.


The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.
The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:
Recent
The thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.

Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLz
My links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.
Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....

Really?  I'll just quote someone else who makes the point better than I.

"Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they sh ...


I'll try again.

Are you for voter ID laws?
 
2014-03-03 05:22:56 PM  
Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?


And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 05:27:42 PM  

LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.


Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.
 
2014-03-03 05:28:05 PM  

LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 05:38:50 PM  

LavenderWolf: and don't crow from the highest rooftop about how they're coming to take your guns,


Oh, and I have never said they are coming to take my rifles.
For one, they do not fit the 'scary' diagram. Two, they are not handguns. Three, I do not have high-cap mags for them.

That being said, many friends who are just as responsible as I, are now going to have to deal with an unreasonable and frivolous bit of failed legislation (which may end up in SCOTUS' lap soon). It will not save a single life. It will only cause grief and money and open a venue to other overreaches and abuse of process. It is a bad thing, done by people with an underhanded agenda.
 
2014-03-03 05:48:09 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?


You might find this article informative:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/
 
2014-03-03 05:48:45 PM  
Glocks are no more dangerous than any other gun.  Glocks are one of the most popular guns for IPSC and IDPA competitions where shooters have to run, draw, find cover, shoot, reload, differentiate between "good guy" and "bad guy" targets and fire accordingly.  All of this while drawing from a concealment holster which is covered by clothing.  I go to and participate in many of these competitions every year.  I have yet to see any other cause to a Glock firing than the trigger being pulled.  I've never seen the trigger "snag" a piece of clothing and I have seen them drawn thousands of times from underneath clothing.  People who go on about how Glocks are unsafe are people with little to no hands-on exposure to handguns.  Also if you are carrying a gun for the purpose of protecting yourself or others, having the safety on will probably get you killed.  There is a reason why the Glock is the most often issued weapon by police departments.  Then there are H&K models that don't have a manual safety that many departments issue.  Of course, the S&W M&P series is also growing in popularity with law enforcement and again that version has no manual safety.  Even the Sig Sauer 226 that federal agencies offer has no safety.
The most basic and often taught rules of gun safety include: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
 
2014-03-03 05:54:05 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

You might find this article informative:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/


So the answer is gun owners who complain that proposed gun laws are paranoid nut jobs but Americans who want people to present ID (just like when they cash a check, get a drivers license, but a plane ticket) are racists and ageists.

Got it.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 05:58:35 PM  

lonerancher: Glocks are no more dangerous than any other gun.  Glocks are one of the most popular guns for IPSC and IDPA competitions where shooters have to run, draw, find cover, shoot, reload, differentiate between "good guy" and "bad guy" targets and fire accordingly.  All of this while drawing from a concealment holster which is covered by clothing.  I go to and participate in many of these competitions every year.  I have yet to see any other cause to a Glock firing than the trigger being pulled.  I've never seen the trigger "snag" a piece of clothing and I have seen them drawn thousands of times from underneath clothing.  People who go on about how Glocks are unsafe are people with little to no hands-on exposure to handguns.  Also if you are carrying a gun for the purpose of protecting yourself or others, having the safety on will probably get you killed.  There is a reason why the Glock is the most often issued weapon by police departments.  Then there are H&K models that don't have a manual safety that many departments issue.  Of course, the S&W M&P series is also growing in popularity with law enforcement and again that version has no manual safety.  Even the Sig Sauer 226 that federal agencies offer has no safety.
The most basic and often taught rules of gun safety include: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.


I dislike the idea of paying a goodly sum of money for a 'plastic fantastic'.
IF (massive if here, because very unlikely I will ever bother with a handgun) I were to buy a handgun it would be along these lines:

picturearchive.gunauction.com

Very limited edition. In a wooden presentation box. With a card signed by the people proud enough to put their names on it.
 
2014-03-03 06:07:20 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?


I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.
 
2014-03-03 06:09:02 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.

Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.


Uh, what exactly are you asking me here?
 
2014-03-03 06:14:59 PM  
A gun in a presentation box doesn't make sense to me but if that is what you are into, cool.  Shooting that gun would reck its value.  Carrying it would leave it damaged by holster wear.  When you clean it the solvents could wreck the gold plating.

I don't need a purdy gun.  I need one that functions and stands up to being carried everyday.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 06:20:55 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.

Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.

Uh, what exactly are you asking me here?


YOUR CLAIM:
LavenderWolf: "I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted."

MY QUERY:
So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?

YOUR ANSWER:?

/because it DID happen, and is impactful to people who did no wrong, and is a model of ex-post-facto abuse
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 06:23:59 PM  

lonerancher: A gun in a presentation box doesn't make sense to me but if that is what you are into, cool.  Shooting that gun would reck its value.  Carrying it would leave it damaged by holster wear.  When you clean it the solvents could wreck the gold plating.

I don't need a purdy gun.  I need one that functions and stands up to being carried everyday.


The point isn't the 'pretty', the point really is fine craftmanship. I will not fork over large sums for things made from cheap materials on a CNC machine that barely get a once-over. No thank you very much.
I know it would get worn. Things are supposed to get worn from use. Just like us 2 legged animals get worn-out. Age. It happens.
 
2014-03-03 06:48:29 PM  

Hickory-smoked: ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.
I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you
 This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.
The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.

Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.


So you're moving the goal post from "Liberals are not trying to disarm you " to "Liberals are not successfully trying to disarm you"? I see, well then there's really no point in speaking with you further is there, as nothing I'm going to say is going to hit the target you keep moving?

But I'll let miss Feinstein say it in her own words, and prove you utterly wrong: "If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here. "

but no, no Liberal wants to take guns away...
 
2014-03-03 06:59:31 PM  

LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.


Of course you don't.

Just noticed you're a Canadian.

Must be tough when your Prime Minister has to bow before a monarch.
 
2014-03-03 07:09:29 PM  

Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.


Yeah. My mom had bars put on the windows of her old house and the QR handles were quite prominent.
 
2014-03-03 07:12:25 PM  
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensrolein C anada.aspx

I'll post this so maybe people can better understand where LavenderWolf is coming from.

"The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity, and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name."

So that's why someone from a colony such as this has a tough time grasping self-determined rights.
 
2014-03-03 07:22:09 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.


This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.
 
2014-03-03 07:22:45 PM  

RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: RatMaster999: RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.


Oh, and this...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-0788-c_magazin e_ declaration.pdf

Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think ...


http://gunsnfreedom.com/ct-cops-seize-69-year-olds-274-legal-guns-an d- charge-him-with-17-felonies/


Here's another example of people not grabbing our guns...
 
2014-03-03 07:32:46 PM  

umad: If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.


But that law didn't take away water pistols, slingshots, pea-shooters, pneumatic tools, or caulk dispensers, so it wasn't really a ban on all guns, was it?

/And while we're on the subject of "Liberals have never retroactively banned and confiscated guns", don't forget the SKS sportster...
 
2014-03-03 07:37:05 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.

Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?
Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.

Uh, what exactly are you asking me here?

YOUR CLAIM:
LavenderWolf: "I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted."

MY QUERY:
So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?

YOUR ANSWER:?

/because it DID happen, and is impactful to people who did no wrong, and is a model of ex-post-facto abuse


I feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.
 
2014-03-03 07:37:41 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.

Of course you don't.

Just noticed you're a Canadian.

Must be tough when your Prime Minister has to bow before a monarch.


... Were you born that way? Or do you practice?
 
2014-03-03 07:55:42 PM  

LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury: LavenderWolf: Agent Nick Fury:
I'll try again.
Are you for voter ID laws?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

It is a registration to practice a right and the left feels it's a conspiracy to deny the right of people to vote.

Are they conspiracy nut-jobs?

I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.

Of course you don't.

Just noticed you're a Canadian.

Must be tough when your Prime Minister has to bow before a monarch.

... Were you born that way? Or do you practice?


I have no interest in engaging in a manufactured distraction.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 08:19:19 PM  

LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.


So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.
 
2014-03-03 09:26:27 PM  

umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.


They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.
 
2014-03-03 09:37:25 PM  

fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-an d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no
 
2014-03-03 10:44:31 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.


You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.
 
2014-03-03 10:45:20 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensrolein C anada.aspx

I'll post this so maybe people can better understand where LavenderWolf is coming from.

"The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity, and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name."

So that's why someone from a colony such as this has a tough time grasping self-determined rights.


Wait, you actually think The Queen has any kind of authority in Canada?

You do realize that she is a figurehead and wields zero authority, right?
 
2014-03-03 10:50:24 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.


Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legislation is put through, but I dislike when people who know nothing about firearms try to regulate them. You end up with a situation where an entire class of otherwise "normal" weapons (i.e. rifle with a pistol grip) while ignoring classes of weaponry actually used in crime. Banning firearms is a silly idea on its face, because the people who use them to commit crime really don't care that they're illegal. The exact same issue as the "drug war." You can make something illegal, but that doesn't stop people who don't care. Most people are well aware of this - that's why "gun control" is on life support.

I mean, what kind of answer do you want?
 
2014-03-03 10:55:06 PM  

LavenderWolf: Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms.


20-40% of a political party can't force the rest of Congress to give in to their demands? Good to know, I guess that means the last two budget crises and the failure of multiple healthcare bills were really the work of everyone in Congress, and really not caused by a handful of Tea-Party crackpots as practically everyone claimed at the time.
 
2014-03-03 10:59:11 PM  

ChaosStar: So you're moving the goal post from "Liberals are not trying to disarm you " to "Liberals are not successfully trying to disarm you"? I see, well then there's really no point in speaking with you further is there, as nothing I'm going to say is going to hit the target you keep moving?


Well, if you're going to be this defensive and snippy, maybe there isn't any point.

Earlier today you said Janet Reno was "on record" as telling supporters that regulation is only a step towards disarmament. But that was a paranoid fabrication. Now you've got another 20 year old quote about Feinstein not being able to pass an outright ban (on all firearms or assault weapons? I can't find a quote with context.)

Maybe she would like to outlaw all guns. How much does that sincerely matter? She isn't going to. I would like to spoon intimately with Christina Hendricks, but she doesn't have to phone the cops on me to keep it from happening.

You have every right to be wary of regulation, but it doesn't help to be paranoid about it. Nobody even mentioned the topic of gun control in this thread before Fark Independents had to run in and start unloading into fabricated strawmen.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 11:03:57 PM  

LavenderWolf: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legislation is put t ...


First candid thing you wrote that is fair and balanced.
The reason I asked your opinion and standing is that we in NY are facing just what you described.
And it has potential precedent to carry over vis-a-vis companion legislation in other states.
Gun control is most certainly NOT on life-support. The left wing is forcing it on ever-increasing segments of the population here under the disgusting banner of "think of the children" ever since Sandy Hook.
There are significant implications.
We here in the US can ignore at the risk of many more "Safety Act" nonsense laws being put through in uncontested manners.
Had there been a vote, Cuomo never would have gotten it through, FYI. The truly devious and dangerous part of it all is he did so using a very underhanded mechanism allowing sweeping latitude in ignoring legal process. And other far-lefts have already been heard to be praising the action as "innovative". That is disturbing.

You keep insisting this is not going to happen. But it IS happening. I assure you. I am witnessing it. I know people sending their very normal firearms off to friends and family out of state to not have to sell them or spend money changing them.
You need to stop thinking that this isn't happening. And you need to know it has a likelihood of spreading.
Politicians ALL have agendas. I trust NONE of them. Just like lawyers.
 
2014-03-03 11:06:01 PM  

Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no


They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 11:13:58 PM  

fusillade762: Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no

They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.


You don't do a very good job at following links, do ya?

LGT letter sent out as a result of the Safety Act.
truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com

Look at the date. Not '94. You are wrong.
 
2014-03-03 11:18:46 PM  

the ha ha guy: Not even that, I speculated on the effectiveness of a full ban and confiscation of everything but bolt-action rifles


Like the weapon used to kill President Kennedy? I think you mean "sniper rifles", that was the proper term back in the 90s.

/just commenting on the use of jargon in this whole issue.
 
2014-03-03 11:32:08 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.


So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have nothing to worry about because they failed, not because they tried, amirite?
 
2014-03-03 11:32:37 PM  

gja: fusillade762: Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no

They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.

You don't do a very good job at following links, do ya?

LGT letter sent out as a result of the Safety Act.
[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 537x615]

Look at the date. Not '94. You are wrong.


You misunderstood the "they" I was referring to. "They" were the posters I was replying to.
 
2014-03-03 11:35:40 PM  

fusillade762: Doom MD: fusillade762: umad: Hickory-smoked: Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons.

This is why it is useless to bother trying to debate with liberals about guns. They are too farking stupid to understand what a ban is.

If something is banned, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY, you farking idiot.

They went house to house taking away people's firearms?

Not being able to sell/manufacture something /= confiscation.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-a n d-shotguns/?onswipe_redirect=no

They were talking about the 1994 "ban", not New York's SAFE act.


Oh, I guess when I get a no knock raid I'll show them your post, dance a jig, and state "no one is trying to take my guns" (tm)
 
2014-03-03 11:36:49 PM  

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have n ...


Legislation was proposed after a series of deadly shootings.

And it failed, because it didn't wasn't supported by the majority of either party.

What more do you want?
 
2014-03-03 11:37:24 PM  

ko_kyi: the ha ha guy: Not even that, I speculated on the effectiveness of a full ban and confiscation of everything but bolt-action rifles

Like the weapon used to kill President Kennedy? I think you mean "sniper rifles", that was the proper term back in the 90s.

/just commenting on the use of jargon in this whole issue.


You shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon, or a sniper rifle, or a handgun. Also, shotguns should be listed as destructive devices.
 
2014-03-03 11:39:51 PM  

LavenderWolf: Doom MD: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have n ...

Legislation was proposed after a series of deadly shootings.

And it failed, because it didn't wasn't supported by the majority of either party.

What more do you want?


My civil rights being attacked whenever the political opportunity presents itself. I'd say that's a pretty good start. Maybe rolling back some of the pre-existing infringements such as the Hughes amendment while were at it. Nationwide ccw would also be a high water mark to achieve.
 
2014-03-03 11:40:54 PM  

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: Doom MD: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have n ...

Legislation was proposed after a series of deadly shootings.

And it failed, because it didn't wasn't supported by the majority of either party.

What more do you want?

My civil rights being attacked whenever the political opportunity presents itself. I'd say that's a pretty good start. Maybe rolling back some of the pre-existing infringements such as the Hughes amendment while were at it. Nationwide ccw would also be a high water mark to achieve.


My civil rights *not being attacked.


Damn I need coffee
 
2014-03-03 11:44:10 PM  

DarkVader: No, those features aren't safeties.


Global Industry standards disagree.  A 'safety' is any system designed to keep the firearm from shooting when it isn't supposed to.  What you're talking about is a manual safety.  There are also internal safeties.

DarkVader: A "manual safety" as you call it IS a safety. Not turning it on is highly irresponsible behavior. Owning a gun without one is irresponsible behavior. And manufacturing or selling a gun without one should be illegal.


I'm not disagreeing with you, a manual safety is a type of safety, what I was saying is that it isn't the ONLY type of safety.  You're doing the equivalent of insisting a rifle is a gun.  Shotguns aren't guns.  Rifles aren't rifles.  I'm using the specific terminology for the industry/equipment.

As for using manual safeties, well, 'not using it' is part of my USAF M-9 training(it goes into the holster with the safety off).  It's also standard training for many police departments, at least the ones not using Glocks or other handguns without one to begin with.  The 2 stage trigger on a glock is set up so that it's supposed to lock the trigger up if what's pushing on the trigger isn't a finger.

LavenderWolf: I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.


When I was too young to be interested in firearms, you could still buy a firearm by mail order, shipped to your house.  Gun rights advocates aren't looking at the last decade.  They're looking at the last 40 years, if not century.

drew46n2: Why do gun-fetishists ignore the numbers of the dead and maimed while celebrating the relatively rare legitimate defensive gun use?


Because most anti-gun types only count it as a 'legitimate defensive gun use' if the weapon is fired, and 90+% of the time it's not?

LavenderWolf: I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases.


Citation?  I'd rate carrying a weapon as easier today on average, but buying them hasn't gotten any easier.
 
2014-03-03 11:47:24 PM  

gja: LavenderWolf: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legisl ...


You act like I don't understand your position.

Expanding on the already mentioned highly unpopular local legislation doesn't actually strengthen your case. Do what you can to defeat it - I already don't support it - but hardly do I think this is some kind of "slow conspiracy to take our guns" like you imply.

Why does the agenda have to be hidden? Seems it's in plain sight for those who actually hold to it. You imply the existence of people in power who say they support access to firearms but in actuality support anti-gun legislation. You're going to have to prove that the people in power - now, not in 2004 or 1994 - are trying to take away your guns. Only then will I believe it.
 
2014-03-03 11:48:55 PM  

Doom MD: You shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon, or a sniper rifle, or a handgun. Also, shotguns should be listed as destructive devices.


You mean semiautomatic gun, or bolt action hunting rifle.  Using sneaky words to get a gun ban is reprehensible.  Using legitimate terminology is the tool of a free man.  Let us all know when you grow up and you can rejoin the discussion.  "Assault weapon" is not synonymous with Assault Rifle, and means you want to band gun because they are scary looking. Thanks for adding to the discussion. Bye.
 
2014-03-03 11:49:54 PM  

LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.
I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legisl ...

You act like I don't understand your position.

Expanding on the already mentioned highly unpopular local legislation doesn't actually strengthen your case. Do what you can to defeat it - I already don't support it - but hardly do I think this is some kind of "slow conspiracy to take our guns" like you imply.

Why does the agenda have to be hidden? Seems it's in plain sight for those who actually hold to it. You imply the existence of people in power who say they support access to firearms but in actuality support anti-gun legislation. You're going to have to prove that the people in power - now, not in 2004 or 1994 - are trying to take away your guns. Only then will I believe it.


Did you not see the link I posted?
 
2014-03-03 11:51:07 PM  

ko_kyi: Doom MD: You shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon, or a sniper rifle, or a handgun. Also, shotguns should be listed as destructive devices.

You mean semiautomatic gun, or bolt action hunting rifle.  Using sneaky words to get a gun ban is reprehensible.  Using legitimate terminology is the tool of a free man.  Let us all know when you grow up and you can rejoin the discussion.  "Assault weapon" is not synonymous with Assault Rifle, and means you want to band gun because they are scary looking. Thanks for adding to the discussion. Bye.


Thatsthejoke.jpeg
 
2014-03-03 11:51:34 PM  

Firethorn: LavenderWolf: I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

When I was too young to be interested in firearms, you could still buy a firearm by mail order, shipped to your house.  Gun rights advocates aren't looking at the last decade.  They're looking at the last 40 years, if not century.


You still can. You can order them online.

Citation?  I'd rate carrying a weapon as easier today on average, but buying them hasn't gotten any easier.

Several weapons bans have expired and legislation has been enacted both federally and on the state level in many states specifically further protecting the right to purchase firearms.
 
2014-03-03 11:55:53 PM  

Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?


Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.
 
2014-03-04 12:02:11 AM  

LavenderWolf: Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?

Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.


You wanted a citation of people in power trying to confiscate guns. Not only have a met that criteria, I did so with a very recent example in one of the largest and most politically influential cities in the USA. Some of the politicians involved or just applauding these efforts have higher political aspirations as well. It's not the only example I could've used. Now you're moving goalposts which assures me your stance is based on something other than rational thought and a harsher person would state you are an intellectually dishonest individual.
 
2014-03-04 12:07:33 AM  

Doom MD: LavenderWolf: Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?

Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.

You wanted a citation of people in power trying to confiscate guns. Not only have a met that criteria, I did so with a very recent example in one of the largest and most politically influential cities in the USA. Some of the politicians involved or just applauding these efforts have higher political aspirations as well. It's not the only example I could've used. Now you're moving goalposts which assures me your stance is based on something other than rational thought and a harsher person would state you are an intellectually dishonest individual.


I haven't moved any goalposts. I said originally that aside from "highly unpopular local legislation" that gun control is dead. And it is; the vast majority of voting Americans support access to firearms. It's political suicide to propose firearm restrictions on any large scale, and places such as Arizona and Texas ensure that legislating area by area wouldn't work.

You're framing this as something bigger than it is. One city which has done so before has enacted a (limited) gun ban, and gun control cheerleaders are doing their thing.
 
2014-03-04 12:15:38 AM  

LavenderWolf: Doom MD: LavenderWolf: Doom MD: Did you not see the link I posted?

Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.

You wanted a citation of people in power trying to confiscate guns. Not only have a met that criteria, I did so with a very recent example in one of the largest and most politically influential cities in the USA. Some of the politicians involved or just applauding these efforts have higher political aspirations as well. It's not the only example I could've used. Now you're moving goalposts which assures me your stance is based on something other than rational thought and a harsher person would state you are an intellectually dishonest individual.

I haven't moved any goalposts. I said originally that aside from "highly unpopular local legislation" that gun control is dead. And it is; the vast majority of voting Americans support access to firearms. It's political suicide to propose firearm restrictions on any large scale, and places such as Arizona and Texas ensure that legislating area by area wouldn't work.

You're framing this as something bigger than it is. One city which has done so before has enacted a (limited) gun ban, and gun control cheerleaders are doing their thing.


So when the next tragedy occurs the usual cast of idiots aren't going to push for the same infringements? Why do you pretend there wasn't a huge concerted push to get gun control legislation on the federal level passed last year? Yes, it thankfully failed but only because of a massive effort on the part of 2a supporters. It's a sobering reminder that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. We'd be having a very different conversation if 2a supporters rolled on this garbage. Gun control legislation isn't dead, it was repelled. I haven't heard "I surrender" declarations from the gun control crowd.
 
2014-03-04 12:34:39 AM  
Doom MD:

So when the next tragedy occurs the usual cast of idiots aren't going to push for the same infringements?

Quite the opposite. Of course they will. As per usual, though, they won't get anywhere.

Why do you pretend there wasn't a huge concerted push to get gun control legislation on the federal level passed last year?

Extremely short lived and without majority support from either party? Yeah. Terrifying, that was.

Did you think the gun control crowd was going to go on the news and admit eternal defeat? They have no teeth with which to bite you. You guys can stop going into literally every single discussion that involves a firearm and crowing about the gun control boogeyman. Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf? You guys keep crying wolf. Limit your jabbering to those discussions that are actually about gun control and you'll meet far better results than threadshiatting everywhere. You might support what you say later, with links and citations and stacked questions, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate to bring up the subject f*cking everywhere.

Here's Doglover threadshiatting: "But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!"
AngryDragon had this to say: "Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting."

And this is the bullshiat I have been talking about.

Somebody uses a gun legally, nobody has a problem with it whatsoever, but two people within the first dozen posts jump on that as an opportunity to crow about the evil anti-gun crowd.

Tell me you understand what I'm saying, please.
 
2014-03-04 12:39:50 AM  

LavenderWolf: Doom MD:

So when the next tragedy occurs the usual cast of idiots aren't going to push for the same infringements?

Quite the opposite. Of course they will. As per usual, though, they won't get anywhere.

Why do you pretend there wasn't a huge concerted push to get gun control legislation on the federal level passed last year?

Extremely short lived and without majority support from either party? Yeah. Terrifying, that was.

Did you think the gun control crowd was going to go on the news and admit eternal defeat? They have no teeth with which to bite you. You guys can stop going into literally every single discussion that involves a firearm and crowing about the gun control boogeyman. Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf? You guys keep crying wolf. Limit your jabbering to those discussions that are actually about gun control and you'll meet far better results than threadshiatting everywhere. You might support what you say later, with links and citations and stacked questions, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate to bring up the subject f*cking everywhere.

Here's Doglover threadshiatting: "But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!"
AngryDragon had this to say: "Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting."

And this is the bullshiat I have been talking about.

Somebody uses a gun legally, nobody has a problem with it whatsoever, but two people within the first dozen posts jump on that as an opportunity to crow about the evil anti-gun crowd.

Tell me you understand what I'm saying, please.


So because gun control advocates have been unsuccessful recently people should let their guard down? There is a concerted effort by certain factions in politics to enact gun control. Is this not beyond doubt? Why do you malign people for opposing those that would infringe in them, especially by mocking these trite talking points? Being passive is what got us the nfa, the Hughes amendment, and the original awb. If anything pro-2a people need to use their momentum to remove past infringements.

The blood in the streets predictions by gun control advocates have not panned out.
 
2014-03-04 12:49:40 AM  
Doom MD:

So because gun control advocates have been unsuccessful recently people should let their guard down?

Quite the opposite. Keep your shield up and pointed in the right direction.

There is a concerted effort by certain factions in politics to enact gun control. Is this not beyond doubt?

I don't doubt it at all. They're just not powerful factions.

Why do you malign people for opposing those that would infringe in them, especially by mocking these trite talking points?

I malign no-one. Those aren't mocking "trite talking points," they are mocking a strawman. I challenge you to name one person in history who has ever said "Guns are only used to kill children," or "Defensive gun use is a myth."

Being passive is what got us the nfa, the Hughes amendment, and the original awb. If anything pro-2a people need to use their momentum to remove past infringements.

And being passive aggressive and idiotic is what gets you the shiat like Doglover's and AngryDragon's posts. Go ahead, have an active defense. Where it actually matters. Those of us who don't feel the need to flagellate our firearms are more annoyed by this shiat than the gun control crowd is, I can tell you that.


The blood in the streets predictions by gun control advocates have not panned out.

And? This matters to me why? I don't support the gun control nutters any more than I support threadshiatting about them.
 
2014-03-04 02:07:29 AM  

drew46n2: GanjSmokr: drew46n2: gun-humpers

Why does it almost always seem the sexual stuff regarding guns comes from the anti-gun crowd?

/penis, fetish, masturbation fantasies, humpers, etc
//NTTAWWT


Why do gun-fetishists ignore the numbers of the dead and maimed while celebrating the relatively rare legitimate defensive gun use?


Because those numbers are relatively small.  On par with auto accidents, and miles and miles behind such things are heart disease, cigarette-related deaths, and even simple slips and falls.


LavenderWolf: Firethorn: LavenderWolf: I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

When I was too young to be interested in firearms, you could still buy a firearm by mail order, shipped to your house.  Gun rights advocates aren't looking at the last decade.  They're looking at the last 40 years, if not century.

You still can. You can order them online.


Only if you jump through all the legal hoops and expenses of getting a FFL.  Otherwise, you have to have it sent to someone holding such a license, usually your local gun shop, where they get to tack on additional handling fees.
 
2014-03-04 04:37:20 AM  

LavenderWolf: You still can. You can order them online.


Order yes, with pre-arrangement with a local FFL(gun store), pay any fees they charge, and pick it up from the FFL with a background check.  Unless you're after something special, it's generally cheaper to just buy it from the dealer directly.

Which is why I said 'shipped to your house'.
 
Displayed 387 of 387 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report