pageok
pageok
pageok
As They Say, "When Seconds Count, the Police Are Only Minutes Away":

The Roanoke Times has the story, including the audio of a 911 call that "represents close to 13 minutes of conversation between [the homeowner], his wife and a 911 dispatcher"; it's not clear exactly what fraction of the 13 minutes was the time it took the police to respond, but it appears that it took many minutes for the police to arrive: "About seven and a half minutes after Hoover calls 911 [because Jones was outside shouting], Jones shatters the glass door with a wrought-iron chair and tries to come in." This may well not be the fault of the police, but it does reveal the value of private self-defense and not just of relying on the police.

Here's the summary,

In the 911 recording, Jody Hoover calls the sheriff's office and tells a dispatcher that there is a "strange man outside our home, and he's hollerin' and he's crying out. I don't know what's going on with him."

Hoover hands the phone to his wife while he gets his double-barreled, 12-gauge shotgun.

Jones can be heard yelling and repeatedly banging on the back sliding glass door.

Hoover's wife tells the dispatcher that the man is talking about Vietnam and 1969, and that he asked Jody Hoover for the date.

Hoover talks to the man from inside. "I don't want to hurt you," he says. "I can't let you in.

"Please, just go away. Please."

About seven and a half minutes after Hoover calls 911, Jones shatters the glass door with a wrought-iron chair and tries to come in.

Hoover told authorities that he shot at Jones twice. Deputies arrived at the house as the shots were fired. Jones was pronounced dead at Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital....

In 2005, Jones was found guilty in Botetourt County of brandishing a firearm and in 1999 and 2000 he was found guilty in Roanoke County of driving under the influence.

I should acknowledge that it's of course possible that, after this extremely drunk man broke the door with a chair, he wouldn't have hurt the residents (or at least wouldn't have hurt them much). We can't know what would have happened. But I'm glad that the Hoovers didn't have to run that risk.

Thanks to Hill Welford for the pointer.

Justin Carlin (mail):
Not surprisingly, those who oppose the use of firearms in self-defense have never lived in a dangerous area or had their life threatened by someone with a firearm. It's easy to oppose guns when you live in a gated community next to a golf course; it's a bit harder to when your neighbor, friend, or relative gets robbed at gun point.
4.17.2009 12:37pm
cboldt (mail):
There are literally thousands of stories of personal self defense with a firearm. The NRA collects them and uses them as a propaganda tool in support of the 2nd amendment. "The Armed Citizen" collection is large, and I'm sure not exhaustive.
.
On the other side, groups collect failures in the use of firearms for personal self defense. Their argument is that if some people use a tool in a bad way, the public can't be trusted with the tool.
4.17.2009 12:43pm
DennisN (mail):

This may well not be the fault of the police, but it does reveal the value of private self-defense and not just of relying on the police.


I don't think there can be any argumet that the police are at fault based on their reaction time or lack of it. You can be murdered in a police station before help arrives.

As one wag put it, "911 - Government Sponsored Dial-A-Prayer."

In extremis, the only one you can rely on, is yourself.
4.17.2009 12:51pm
Cityduck (mail):
Is anyone trying to ban personal ownership or possession of shotguns in one's own home?
4.17.2009 12:52pm
CCC (mail):
"Not surprisingly, those who oppose the use of firearms in self-defense have never lived in a dangerous area or had their life threatened by someone with a firearm." -- excuse me: "those" should be read as "those whom I know."
4.17.2009 12:54pm
cboldt (mail):
-- Is anyone trying to ban personal ownership or possession of shotguns in one's own home? --
.
Yes. But until it is reconstrued, the Heller decision stands as a temporary roadblock. Some advocate that ownership should be permitted, but the "keeping" should be in government-controlled armories.
4.17.2009 1:01pm
Kirk:
Cityduck,

Well, DC certainly prohibited the possession of shotguns in ready-to-use condition, and based on their response to Heller are doing what they can to evade the intent of that ruling.
4.17.2009 1:02pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

Not surprisingly, those who oppose the use of firearms in self-defense have never lived in a dangerous area or had their life threatened by someone with a firearm. It's easy to oppose guns when you live in a gated community next to a golf course; it's a bit harder to when your neighbor, friend, or relative gets robbed at gun point.

How do you explain Chicago, NYC, and SF?
4.17.2009 1:03pm
swg:
I wonder if the owner could have hit the guy with a baseball bat, or used something else that might have been nonlethal. Seems to me shooting to kill certainly fits within the range of morally acceptable defenses in this situation, but I hope there are many gunowners who (with adequate amounts of time to reflect and courage to act) would try something else first. Although I don't know what that crazy guy looks like. If he's 6'3", 270 lbs, then he's probably SOL for moral generosity in self-defense.
4.17.2009 1:03pm
greginsocal (mail):
Jeez, Cityduck. You need to get out more. Perhaps then you would have noticed the agendas of the Brady Center, the Violence Policy Center, and any number of Democratic politicians (Feinstein, McCarthy, Schumer, etc.). Even our esteemed (at least by some) new president has in the past actively pursued an anti-gun agenda (see his nefarious activities in association with the Joyce Foundation). Were any of these folks to get their way, there would be no firearms of any kind in private ownership.
4.17.2009 1:04pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Is anyone trying to ban personal ownership or possession of shotguns in one's own home?

Why, yes. Consider that, in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre, pump-action guns were classified as Class C and Class D firearms in Australia, thus can be legally owned only by farmers and licensed professional hunters.
4.17.2009 1:06pm
Cityduck (mail):
So the present state of the law is that folks are free to own and possess shotguns, and, under Heller, to potentially store them loaded.

I have no problem with that. Being from the West Coast, I see no problem with ownership of many types of small arms. But, frankly, the folks who want to own semi-automatic or automatic rifles, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc., creep me out. I seriously doubt that the NRA has many stories where those weapons were necessarily used in "self-defense."

Thankfully, if First Amendment jurisprudence is any guide, even under strict scrutiny many government regulations on firearms will be permissible.
4.17.2009 1:16pm
Cityduck (mail):
Who cares about Australia?
4.17.2009 1:17pm
Oren:
I bet the guy wishes he had a taser in addition to the shotgun.
4.17.2009 1:18pm
FWB (mail):
The point is that IF the man was a vietnam vet, he along with most others who have served our country were failed by their country. After WWII, the military spent as much or more time debriefing and deprogramming the vets as they did training them. Latter vets are brought home and dumped on the streets without being provided the needed help to deal with what they have been through. Many turn to drink and drugs. Current Iraq vets are killing themselves at rates well beyond previous rates. The couple had the right to defend themselves. But the government once again was the cause of the problem. Do it right. Do it honorably. But that is too much to ask.

Tiochfaidh ar la!
4.17.2009 1:24pm
cirby (mail):
Cityduck:
So you're fine with someone owning a weapon that can blow a hole in your chest big enough to put a fist through, but you're really, really worried about the possibility that someone might put several smaller holes in you over the course of a second or so?
4.17.2009 1:24pm
Kirk:
Cityduck, as long as we're being frank, I'll admit that hoplophobes really creep me out.
4.17.2009 1:29pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
FWB,

If the linked article is to be believed the guy was way too young (35) to be a Veitnam vet. It does not say whether he had served at some other time.
4.17.2009 1:29pm
cboldt (mail):
-- Cityduck, as long as we're being frank, I'll admit that hoplophobes really creep me out. --
.
Seconded. I even have strong dislike of them, and tend to shun them in my personal life. The beauty of the system is that they act the same way (shunning non-hoplophobes), so our wishes and actions are in harmony.
4.17.2009 1:33pm
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb :

But, frankly, the folks who want to own semi-automatic or automatic rifles, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc., creep me out.

Two questions:

(a) Why do these people creep you out?

(b) Why should we care that they creep you out?

I'm assuming you think we should care that they creep you out; if not, feel free to skip (b).
4.17.2009 1:37pm
Cityduck (mail):
I own hunting weapons so I'm no hoplophobe. But you don't hunt with armor piercing bullets, machine guns or semi-automatic rifles unless you're a total idiot.


So you're fine with someone owning a weapon that can blow a hole in your chest big enough to put a fist through, but you're really, really worried about the possibility that someone might put several smaller holes in you over the course of a second or so?


No. I'm fine with someone owning a hunting weapon because it is legitimately used for hunting as well as being usable for self-defense (which is why I also have no problem with personal ownership of handguns). In fact, a shotgun is a classic weapon of self-defense precisely because of the spread. Automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets not so much. I'm still waiting for all those NRA stories about how those types of weapons and bullets were necessary to someone's self-defense.
4.17.2009 1:38pm
Justin Carlin (mail):
ruuffles: I was appealing to anecdotal evidence in my first statement and simply misspoke by generalizing those who oppose the use of firearms for purposes of self-defense. Nonetheless, within the cities you mentioned, I would guess that there is a disparity between the views of those who reside in higher-crime areas and the views of those who reside in lower-crime areas, with those residing in higher-crime areas being more open to the idea of using a firearm in self-defense than those who reside in lower-crime areas. Are you aware of any studies that are at odds with my hypothesis?
4.17.2009 1:39pm
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb :

If the linked article is to be believed the guy was way too young (35) to be a Veitnam vet.

In the summer of 1990, a disturbed guy on the Atlanta MARTA singled me out of a crowd of other commmuters and started shouting at me, saying that he "should have killed me in Vietnam when he had the chance." He wasn't old enough to have been in Nam, I obviously wasn't, and I'm not Vietnamese or Asian.

Maybe it's just a crazy-guy thing.
4.17.2009 1:40pm
Kirk:
cboldt,

Our "wishes and actions" stop being in harmony when they gang up with those who love excessive government power to engage in a campaign of disarming us!

And sure, "creep me out" was just me being cute and turning Cityduck's wording back on him. But in all seriousness, unless you know the hoplophobe personally and have a good idea of their background, you're often unsure whether they should be pitied or feared. Perhaps their outlook is a matter of unhappy personal background (e.g. I know several people who are adamant about having a gun-free household whose fathers committed suicide by shooting themselves) and thus pity and sympathy is appropriate; but if not, then at least some level of concern is warranted as to their intentions.
4.17.2009 1:41pm
DonP (mail):
"But, frankly, the folks who want to own semi-automatic or automatic rifles, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc., creep me out. I seriously doubt that the NRA has many stories where those weapons were necessarily used in "self-defense." "

You have some serious catch up reading and studying to do my friend.

You might start with the 1934 NFA.

We are also paying a bounty for any actual article from the demonized NRA (not the Brady Group re-interpretation, the actual NRA) suggesting "automatic rifles, machine guns and armor piercing bullets" for self or home defense. Also any article encouraging criminals and the mentally unstable from having unfettered access to guns.

Right now a semi-automatic "assault weapon" the AR-15 platform is also the most popular target rifle in America. There have been very few reports of mass shootings of anything but paper targets at 200 and 600 yards at Camp Perry.
4.17.2009 1:44pm
Cityduck (mail):
"(a) Why do these people creep you out?"

I see no legitimate reason for someone to want to own armor peircing bullets unless they harbor a desire or fantasy of someday shooting someone.

"(b) Why should we care that they creep you out?"

Because folks like me tend to inhabitat the middle of the gun rights debate and will be important voters when it comes to these issues. Unless you can articulate a case for personal ownership of something like armor piercing ammo, instead of reacting as you are here, you will never win the support of voters like me.
4.17.2009 1:44pm
Kirk:
Cityduck,
I own hunting weapons so I'm no hoplophobe.
This is just the firearms equivalent of the "some of my best friends are..." argument. Fine, I'll stipulate that you own hunting weapons, but it can still be the case that you're an enemy of the 2nd Amendment or of self-defense more generally.
But you don't hunt with ... semi-automatic rifles unless you're a total idiot.
But alas, this sentence is so ignorant that it calls into question the truthfulness of the previous one.
4.17.2009 1:49pm
Floridan:
The fact that the caller was on the phone with the 911 operator for 13 minutes does not mean that this was a cause for delayed response.

911 operators dispatch the police immediately; they attempt to keep the caller on the phone to get better information and to monitor the crime in progress (which is relayed to the police).
4.17.2009 1:53pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
Cityduck,

I can't speak for others on this but one of the things I appreciate about firearms is the quality of workmanship that goes into them.

Think of it somewhat like fine automobiles though not quite as expensive for the most part.

A well made machine gun is designed to operate perfectly under demanding conditions, and that is something to be admired whether you actually intend to fire them or not. I see rendering firearms inoperable in much the same light that an auto enthusiast would see doing the same to a car then putting it on display, it may look the same under casual glance but something has been lost.

(Note that both fine autos and automatic weapons are outside my budget but I understand the collection desires behind both)
4.17.2009 1:55pm
DonP (mail):
Cityduck

You might want to choose another subject beyond armor piercing bullets thingie. The NRA has never suggested they be made available and the sale of AP for handgun calibers has been strictly controlled (as in banned) for quite a while.

Pretty much any rifle cartridge will defeat a protective vest, except the high end ones with trauma plates. Even the old 30-30 will punch through Kevlar pretty easily.

As for machine guns and automatic rifles, I have yet to see the NRA lobbying for the repeal of the NFA.

Oh, the shotgun for home defense thing. It's always a personal choice but the spread of a 12 gauge, even with #9 birdshot at 20 feet (average longest hall in a home) is only about an 1/2 to 3/4 inch after it leaves the barrel. It really doesn't have the time or space to spread out too much.

More folks seem to opt for the extra maneuverability of a handgun. But as I said, it's a personal choice. Just make sure you don't take a side that limits my choices and I'll leave yours alone.

Only about 20% of all gun owners are hunters, just so you know that there are way more competitive and target shooters than hunters.
4.17.2009 1:56pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
Justin Carlin:

I lived in a ghetto area of New Haven for two years when it had the highest violent crime rate in the country. After that, I lived in Washington Heights in Manhattan when it had the highest murder rate of any police district in the country. And after that, I lived two houses away from a crack house in Venice Beach in California. I've had guns pointed at me a few times, but nothing came of it.

The closest I've come to actually getting shot was jogging in Houston, TX. I passed a woman who was walking on the sidewalk, and apparently startled her. I passed her with about 3-4 feet clearance. She pulled a gun out of her bag and pointed it at me, absolutely furious. She said, "Next time you do that you will end up dead, sonny."

I'm in favor of many, but not all, gun control laws.
4.17.2009 1:57pm
Kirk:
Cityduck,
Unless you can articulate a case for personal ownership of something like armor piercing ammo, instead of reacting as you are here, you will never win the support of voters like me.
Ah, I think we maybe have a prior problem here. Hoplophobe or no, you're clearly a statist or a legitimacy-flows-downward-from-the-rulers type of fellow.

Sorry, I am just as strongly in favor of the Jeffersonian "consent of the governed" approach as I am in favor of self-defense being one of those inalienable human rights. The burden should be 100% on the government to demonstrate its case as to why any small arms should be prohibited. That it exactly what the 2nd Amendment was supposed to ensure.
4.17.2009 1:58pm
jcr:

Unless you can articulate a case for personal ownership of something like armor piercing ammo


Liberty. It's the same as the case for me owning a decorative samurai sword. The burden is not on us to defend liberty and prove that it somehow outweighs "creeping you out".

The Brady Campaign creeps me out.
4.17.2009 1:58pm
Cityduck (mail):
"But alas, this sentence is so ignorant that it calls into question the truthfulness of the previous one."

Well, perhaps the issue here is nomenclature. I admit that I really don't pay much attention to the gun issue as its not an important one on the West Coast, so I haven't got the lingo of the debate down. I am using the term "semi-automatic" to refer to the lightweight military style rifles like the AR-16 and AK-47 which are not useable for deer hunting and which are the target of legislative action, not a deer rifle with a limited reload capability (or a shotgun with reload).
4.17.2009 2:02pm
Houston Lawyer:
Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have been used for hunting for decades for a large variety of game. I personally use bolt-action rifles, but my shotgun is a pump-action.

I really want an AR-15 though to go pig hunting. Pigs are a nuisance animal and there is no bag limit. In addition, they are smart. You really need a semi-automatic to do the hunt justice.
4.17.2009 2:03pm
SeaDrive:

But, frankly, the folks who want to own semi-automatic or automatic rifles, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc., creep me out.


This a typical comment from the anti-gun side, and it has a typical characteristic: it reveals that the speaker is ignorant about guns. No wonder gun owners are angry and mistrustful.

If I may translate with respect to semi-automatic rifles only, this means "I am OK with your wanting a gun based on obsolete technology, but not OK with your wanting a gun based on modern technology." (Not that modern either: most of the guns at issue are similar in firepower to the M1 of WWII.)

As to the comment on armor piercing bullets, why am I suspicious that if I asked to you explain exactly what kind of ammo you are talking about, and how it compares to what might be used for hunting deer or bear, you couldn't tell me?
4.17.2009 2:04pm
cboldt (mail):
-- But in all seriousness, unless you know the hoplophobe personally and have a good idea of their background, you're often unsure whether they should be pitied or feared. --
.
True that. As political activists, I find them odious and objectionable, to be fought with an appropriate degree of resistance. As far as personal encounters go (i.e., risk of physical injury), then tend to be as pacifist and harmless as I am, so all is peaceful.
.
As political opponents, they are entrenched and irrational, and as such, I perceive them as dangerous threats to the Republic. I won't even concede "good intention" to them.
4.17.2009 2:04pm
Cityduck (mail):

Sorry, I am just as strongly in favor of the Jeffersonian "consent of the governed" approach as I am in favor of self-defense being one of those inalienable human rights. The burden should be 100% on the government to demonstrate its case as to why any small arms should be prohibited. That it exactly what the 2nd Amendment was supposed to ensure.


In the real world, the scope of gun rights are defined by legislatures and appointed judges. The first defense for such rights is in the public policy debates over proposed legislation. If you opt out of those debates, you will lose them in the legislature and then will be forced to rely upon the courts. That's your choice. But given the history of judicial protection for free speech rights, that may be a bad one.
4.17.2009 2:06pm
geokstr:

FWB:
Current Iraq vets are killing themselves at rates well beyond previous rates.

I call BS.

CBS and other liberal "studies" of vet suicide rates have been thoroughly debunked:

"More important still, the Army study corrected for some key demographic facts - notably, that the military is largely male and that men are much likelier to commit suicide than women are. Among civilians who match the overall age, gender and race profile of the U.S. Army, the suicide rate was 19 per 100,000 - higher than for the troops.

So, even if CBS's numbers for younger vets' suicides hold up, the rate isn't twice the relevant civilian one - let alone the "two to four times higher" that CBS claimed.

Another problem shows up when you look at the repeated studies of the 700,000 or so vets of first Gulf War - which have found no increased suicide rate. The same is true of a massive 2004 study of Vietnam vets."
CBS' BOGUS VET-SUICIDE STATS


Even if it was true, the idea that the folks at CBS and the media in general give a rat's ass about the veterans is ludicrous on its face, unless they can somehow be used as political pawns to bash the right.
4.17.2009 2:13pm
Cityduck (mail):

You might want to choose another subject beyond armor piercing bullets thingie. The NRA has never suggested they be made available and the sale of AP for handgun calibers has been strictly controlled (as in banned) for quite a while.

...

As for machine guns and automatic rifles, I have yet to see the NRA lobbying for the repeal of the NFA.


So it appears we are in agreement that some weapons and ammo are properly subject to reasonable regulation. As I said, folks like me, who I admit are more "ignorant" on this subject than hard-core gun enthusiasts, are the middle ground on this issue. If you want our votes, and you should, you try to courting us by emphasizing your reasonable positions instead of pushing us away with insults and foolish arguments.
4.17.2009 2:13pm
Kazinski:
It is obvious that Cityduck is a poser, and has no idea what he is talking about. My first exposure to a semi-auto hunting rifle was my cousin's .22 when I was about 10. The way he tries repeatably to conflate machine guns with semi-automatic rifles is a dead giveaway.
4.17.2009 2:18pm
juris imprudent (mail):
armor piercing bullets, machine guns or semi-automatic rifles

First, virtually any .30-06 round will penetrate most any body armor. There is no more classic hunting round than the .30-06 - you have no idea what you are talking about.

Second, machine guns were heavily regulated from 1934 to 1986 and since 1986 new ones have not been available to civilians. If you live in that part of the West Coast known as California, they are only available to police and TV/movie production companies. You again, have no idea what you are talking about.

Third, semi-auto rifles and shotguns are very common hunting guns. No, I wouldn't use an AR-15 for hunting pigs (them Texas ones must be little fellers), and the 5.56 round is undersized for deer. But an M1A in .308 is most suitable for most medium to large game. Yet again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

May I be so bold as to suggest that you learn a bit before you form your opinions.
4.17.2009 2:22pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Who cares about Australia?

As indicated by articles linked in the comments to the Volokh.com post I linked to, American gun control advocates commonly cite the laws in foreign countries as THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE DONE HERE. And, other than perhaps Canada, Australia is as similar to the US as one can imagine. (Ex-British colony, independence is prized, egalitarian, etc.)So what's good for the Aussies should be good for us.

Moreover, a skilled pump-action shooter can shoot almost as fast as an autoloader. You use the recoil to help you move the forearm.

you don't hunt with armor piercing bullets, machine guns or semi-automatic rifles unless you're a total idiot.

Ah. No one should own anything unless it has obvious utility. Thus no one should own a 4WD vehicle unless he drives off road. No one should own a vehicle capable of going over 80 mph because that is the highest speed limit anywhere. No one should own a motorcycle because the chance of death or injury is too high, and you can get anywhere more safely in a car. Basically you don't go to the grocery store in an SUV or a motorcycle unless you're a total idiot.
4.17.2009 2:24pm
Carolina:
Cityduck,


I am using the term "semi-automatic" to refer to the lightweight military style rifles like the AR-16 and AK-47 which are not useable for deer hunting and which are the target of legislative action,


Please don't take this personally, but this is the kind of comment that drives gun owners bonkers.

Military weapons - those that are fully automatic (i.e., machine guns) are not available to the public with a couple of exceptions not important here.

"Military style" weapons look similar, but shoot only once per trigger pull, just like large numbers of hunting shotguns and hunting rifles.

This is why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was such a joke. A simply defined ban of "All semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine holding 10 or more rounds" would ban the huge majority of hunting and target shooting weapons owned today.

So what did Congress do? They defined "Assault weapons" based on basically cosmetic features: flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc. This is ludicrous for obvious reasons. Have you ever heard of a criminal bayonet charge? Or a crime that could have been stopped if only the criminal's muzzle flash were brighter?

There is simply no way to ban "military looking" rifles that would not been the great majority of hunting and target shooting weapons, unless you define "assault weapons" based on cosmetic features (as Congress did in 1994). But what the heck is the point of that? Manufacturers just strip off the cosmetic features (bayonet mounts, flash supressors, etc) and sell the exact same gun, which is just as lethal.

One final point: the rounds fired by most "assault weapons" would be the NATO 5.56mm. This is FAR less powerful than even medium hunting calibers, such as the .30-06.

Sorry for the long post. But IMHO, the assault weapons ban - at least as enacted by Congress in 1994 -- simply cannot be rationally defended. If you know what it did, it is obvious that it was "symbolic" legislation only.
4.17.2009 2:25pm
DennisN (mail):
@ Cityduck


I am using the term "semi-automatic" to refer to the lightweight military style rifles like the AR-16 and AK-47 which are not useable for deer hunting and which are the target of legislative action, not a deer rifle with a limited reload capability (or a shotgun with reload).


Actually, the AK-47 makes a fine deer rifle, provided you're shooting at moderate ranges. It is short and handy, albeit of indifferent accuracy. It's heavy, though. Many states limit hunting rifle magazine sizes. A small magazine is available for it. Personally, I prefer the older SKS, which fires the same cartridge. The 7.62 x 39mm cartridge is ballistically similar to the .30-30, a classic deer cartridge.

The AR-15 is a fine rifle for coyote and varmint control. It is very accurate and has good ergonomics. The cartridge is considered by many to be too weak for deer hunting.

As a point of order, the AR-15 is the semiautomatic only civilian version of the arm. The M16 is the military version, which is capable of full automatic (machinegun) fire. I'm not familiar with an AR-16. The so-called AK47 available in the US is a semiautomatic only version of the military arm.

Large capacity magazines are not of much use in hunting. If you can't connect with three rounds, you'll have nothing to shoot at with the rest. They add unnecessary weight to the rifle.
4.17.2009 2:26pm
sarcastration (mail):
Unless you can articulate a case for personal ownership of something like a Ferrari F430, 80 ft. yacht, 2000+ sq. ft house, or a 2 TB external disk drive, you will never win the support of voters like me. There is simply no need for them when a Miada, rowboat, hut, and thumbdrive will work just fine.
4.17.2009 2:28pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
City Duck:

You do realize that the Ruger Mini 14 and Mini 30 are both hunting rifles, and are semi automatic? You say you are ok with handguns, but most handguns are semi automatic too. You're also ok with shotguns, but they too come in semi automatic versions. What's your problem with semi automatic?
BTW sniper rifles which are not designed for self defense are usually bolt action.

What armor piercing bullets are you talking about? Where would I buy such a thing. Show me one example of armor piercing bullets available to the general public.
4.17.2009 2:28pm
Seamus (mail):

Well, perhaps the issue here is nomenclature. I admit that I really don't pay much attention to the gun issue as its not an important one on the West Coast, so I haven't got the lingo of the debate down.



People who throw around the lingo of the debate without knowing WTF they're talking about creep me out.
4.17.2009 2:30pm
cboldt (mail):
-- If you want our votes, and you should, you try to courting us by emphasizing your reasonable positions instead of pushing us away with insults and foolish arguments. --
.
It's nonsense to "threaten" with a comment that "your vote" (which is going to a gun grabber in any event, because all things considered, you will vote D) and position on this is at risk on account of insults and foolish arguments at a chat board. If the issue is important to you, you'll deliberate and reach a reasoned conclusion, unaffected by noise.
.
In any event, based on your participation here, I conclude that you are not amenable to persuasion. You will advocate for whatever "reasonable regulations" are proposed by the leading D politicians.
4.17.2009 2:31pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

There is simply no need for them when a Miada, rowboat, hut, and thumbdrive will work just fine.

Reminds me: We shouldn't let cityduck have access to Amazon. Nobody NEEDS access to so many books. When he finishes learning his Bible, it will be time enough to let him read something else.

I'm also advocating "one book a month" laws. Nobody can read more than twelve books a year, anyways. Those who claim to need more books are really strawman purchasers looking to exploit the "First Sale Doctrine" loophole to evade Copyright Law.
4.17.2009 2:32pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Duffy Pratt:

First you say,

"I lived two houses away from a crack house in Venice Beach in California. I've had guns pointed at me a few times, but nothing came of it."

Then you say,

"The closest I've come to actually getting shot was jogging in Houston, TX. I passed a woman who was walking on the sidewalk, and apparently startled her."

I think we more details here, because on their face, the two stories don't connect. Nothing came of the gun pointing in both instances. I'm curious as to why you regard a likely criminal pointing a gun at you as less of a "close call" than someone you startled and for some reason felt threatened at least momentarily. I realize that I wasn't there, and you were, and your perceptions could be accurate but we need more information.
4.17.2009 2:40pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
I should think anyone posting here should have at least a little knowledge of firearms as you are going to get dumped on and really embarrassed if you don't. I have seen people post (like Duffy Pratt) who have obviously not bothered to inform themselves at all. Just a little reading on Wikipedia would help. Then there are numerous firearm sites where one can get information.

Please don't waste people's time and key strokes.
4.17.2009 2:45pm
Cityduck (mail):
A couple of posters here have provided the kind of information that is helpful to persuading folks like me, but a lot of you really are tone deaf. I think others of you might want to re-read my posts, perceive what my real positions (however ill-founded you might think they are), and attempt to persuade instead of deride.

It appears the common ground here is:

(1) Some gun control regulations are ok (at least with me, the NRA, and a number of folks posting) such as banning certain types of ammo and machine guns, for example; and

(2) Other types of gun regulation are not ok such as banning hunting weapons and handguns (and I'm open to persuasion on what properly constitutes a hunting weapon).

I don't have common gound with those posters who believe that the 2nd Amendment, in contrast to the 1st, conveys an absolute right of unrestrained gun ownership. They seem to be denying reality and basic principles of Constitutional law.
4.17.2009 2:48pm
Kirk:
Cityduck,
I admit that I really don't pay much attention to the gun issue as its not an important one on the West Coast,
Gun control is a huge issue on the West Coast. And it's not the "lingo" of the debate you don't have down, it's a basic understanding of firearms. Really, it's hard to resist the conclusion that your bona fides is in question here.

No, I'm not saying that it's impossible that an individual firearm owner and hunter could be as out of touch with the overall national debate as you are, not at all. In one sense, I wish we could all be so--just going about our pursuits w/o having to worry about governmental scumbags abusing their power. But if that really is your situation, how is it that you come prepared with a bunch of opinions on the subject? One would think your conversation here would be limited to, "Wow; You're kidding; I had no idea; You can get in trouble for that? ... There are people that want to ban what???"
4.17.2009 2:50pm
Kirk:
Cityduck,

Dude, enough with the hunting already. Nobody here thinks the 2nd Amendment "guarantees an absolute right of unrestrained gun ownership"*. But everyone else besides you does appear to realize that the 2nd is about infantry-class weapons, not about hunting. There's far more constitutional permission for the government to ban your hunting rifle than to prohibit me, as a civilian, from owning a select-fire M16 or M4 as is issued to our troops.

------------------------------------------------------------
*Just in case there's any doubt, let's do a straw poll: how many here think laws restricting possession by violent felons, minors, and the flagrantly insane are unconstitutional?
4.17.2009 2:56pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

I think others of you might want to re-read my posts, perceive what my real positions, and attempt to persuade instead of deride.

Your position appears to be that all firearms should be banned unless there is good (to you) reason to own them. This creates friction for the liberty-loving commenters, who believe that nothing should be banned unless the ban meets strict scrutiny.

If you could appreciate that the others here believe that firearms ownership is a fundamental right, it would sharpen your arguments.
4.17.2009 2:57pm
john w. (mail):
A. Zarkov wrote: " ... Show me one example of armor piercing bullets available to the general public. ..."

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, *rifle* caliber AP ammo is legal and widely available. I have a small box of 30-.06 (allegedly) AP ammo that a bought out of curiosity at a gunshow in Montana last year. Some day, when I have some free time, I'm going to take it and some scraps of steel plate out to the target range and see what happens.

(That's just a minor quibble, of course. I agree 100% with the spirit of your post.)
4.17.2009 3:02pm
DennisN (mail):
Be careful with that blacktip ammunition (US Armor Piercing rounds usually have a black tip.) If the round does not penetrate the armor, the hardened steel core can rebound. People have shot themselves that way.
4.17.2009 3:14pm
Smallholder (mail) (www):
Justin Carlin wrote:


Not surprisingly, those who oppose the use of firearms in self-defense have never lived in a dangerous area or had their life threatened by someone with a firearm. It's easy to oppose guns when you live in a gated community next to a golf course; it's a bit harder to when your neighbor, friend, or relative gets robbed at gun point.


As I understand it, your hypothesis is absolutely wrong. The more rural an area, the less chance of robbery and the greater the public support for gun ownership. In areas where the violence is the highest, the demand for gun control is the highest. Note that crime-ridden D.C. had one of the toughest gun control regimes, as does Chicago.

I would say that, in general, support for gun rights is actually inversely correlated with the crime rate of the area.

Note that I specify a correlated relationship, not a causal one. The lack of crime in pro-gun areas is probably more closely linked with lower population densities and cultural norms.

I have a rifle and want to keep it. But I don't fear violent robbery - felons are unlikely to visit me in my little farm house.
4.17.2009 3:28pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Cityduck, could you be a little more specific about that "hunting weapon" you own? Your comments makes me wonder if it might not be a 'bow and error'.
4.17.2009 3:41pm
Cityduck (mail):

No, I'm not saying that it's impossible that an individual firearm owner and hunter could be as out of touch with the overall national debate as you are, not at all. In one sense, I wish we could all be so--just going about our pursuits w/o having to worry about governmental scumbags abusing their power. But if that really is your situation, how is it that you come prepared with a bunch of opinions on the subject? One would think your conversation here would be limited to, "Wow; You're kidding; I had no idea; You can get in trouble for that? ... There are people that want to ban what???"


Kirk, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I own shotguns. My very first post on this thread was the question:

"Is anyone trying to ban personal ownership or possession of shotguns in one's own home?"

So I think my posts reflect your expectations.

The opinions I've stated are either visceral reactions to things like the desire to own armor piercing ammo (and I now see there's some debate about whether its legal or not) or pretty non-controversial opinions about the reality that Constitutional rights are not absolute. My view is that guns can and should be regulated if there is a sufficient reason to do so. I see no reason to protect guns more than speech, and I can see good arguments why guns should be afforded less protection.

The folks up thread who are deriding the notion that some gun regulations might be Constitutionally permisisble by suggesting it would be as absurd as regulating a person's right to own or use a car fail to understand we already do that. You get enough DUIs, you're not allowed to drive. That kind of rhetoric is not persuasive or even cogent.

As I said re-read my posts, and try to persuade not deride.
4.17.2009 3:44pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):

Not surprisingly, those who oppose the use of firearms in self-defense have never lived in a dangerous area or had their life threatened by someone with a firearm. It's easy to oppose guns when you live in a gated community next to a golf course; it's a bit harder to when your neighbor, friend, or relative gets robbed at gun point.


I think it's very silly to be opposed to the use of firearms in self-defense. At the same time, I think it's very silly to use anecdotes like this one to justify a gun fetish culture that has nothing to do with self-defense.

I think people should be allowed to own guns. In fact, I think they should be allowed to own as many as they want (of a certain kind) provided that they're not crazy, violent felons, child or spouse abusers. But that doesn't mean a guy who sports a military fetish and manages to bring his extensive collection of guns up in conversation at least once a day, isn't going to creep me out.
4.17.2009 3:44pm
john w. (mail):
let's do a straw poll: how many here think laws restricting possession by violent felons, minors, and the flagrantly insane are unconstitutional?

Violent felons: I don't have a problem with restricting the rights of violent felons as long as (a) the duration of the restriction is commensurate with the severity of the crime, and (b) the punishment is imposed on an individualized basis by a Jury, and not by "one-size-fits-all" judicial or legislative fiat. But a lifetime self-defense ban for some guy who once got into a bar-room brawl when he was 19 is absurd.

Minors: Here in Montana, it is perfectly legal for any 14 year old who has passed a Hunter Safety course to pick up a semi-auto 30-.06 and go elk hunting *alone* in grizzly bear territory. I don't know that I'd allow my kid to do that, but I support leaving the law the way it is.

Flagrantly insane: No argument from me.
4.17.2009 3:53pm
Fact Checker:
Not surprisingly, those who oppose the use of firearms in self-defense have never lived in a dangerous area or had their life threatened by someone with a firearm. It's easy to oppose guns when you live in a gated community next to a golf course; it's a bit harder to when your neighbor, friend, or relative gets robbed at gun point.

You know I would really like to use language that I know would get me banned from this site to respond to this. Especially since I know how sensitive Eugene is when it comes to criticizing the God Given right to bear arms. What is the 5th grade joke? What word starts with "F" ends with "uck", "Firetruck" you.

I have never lived in a gated community, or next to a golf course. I have lived in Chicago, Atlanta, DC, Kansas City and New Orleans. I doubt you have ever lived outside of the suburbs. Don't presume that I, or anyone else who thinks that the gun control laws in NYC, Chicago and DC are rational and sane and reasonable do not live in neighborhoods that do not struggle with levels of crime and violence that you can not even imagine. We know that more guns and more violence is not the answer to solving the underlying problems that plague our inner cities.
4.17.2009 4:00pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

But that doesn't mean a guy who sports a military fetish and manages to bring his extensive collection of guns up in conversation at least once a day, isn't going to creep me out.

To me that would be equally repellent of anyone I would perceive to be obsessed with something, whether it was guns, cars, or women in their twenties.
4.17.2009 4:01pm
john w. (mail):
" ... more guns and more violence is not the answer to solving the underlying problems that plague our inner cities...."

Your fallacy is that you are reflexively equating "more guns" with "more violence" as if they were interchangeable concepts, but they are not.

It is undoubtedly true that more guns in the hands of bad, irresponsible people will result in more violence. But more guns in the hands of good, responsible people would result in less violence.

Furthermore, the most basic "underlying problem" that plagues your inner cities is an ineffectual, revolving door criminal justice system that obsesses over victimless crimes like pot smoking instead of meting out swift, certain, and severe punishment to those who commit unprovoked acts of violence against innocent victims.
4.17.2009 4:25pm
cboldt (mail):
-- We know that ... more violence is not the answer to solving the underlying problems that plague our inner cities. --
.
Aye aye, Captain Obvious.
4.17.2009 4:31pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

The opinions I've stated are either visceral reactions to things like the desire to own armor piercing ammo (and I now see there's some debate about whether its legal or not) or pretty non-controversial opinions about the reality that Constitutional rights are not absolute. My view is that guns can and should be regulated if there is a sufficient reason to do so.

Sure, guns can be regulated if the regulation is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. But that hardly means that guns should be regulated based on how your viscera responds to them, as you seem to advocate.
4.17.2009 4:46pm
Fact Checker:
But more guns in the hands of good, responsible people would result in less violence.

Good, responsible people shun guns. Insecure, paranoid, irresponsible, delusional people who think they are good and responsible gravitate towards guns thinking they are are doing society a favor while in fact they are just raising level of fear and suspicion.
4.17.2009 4:52pm
Fact Checker:
Minors: Here in Montana, it is perfectly legal for any 14 year old who has passed a Hunter Safety course to pick up a semi-auto 30-.06 and go elk hunting *alone* in grizzly bear territory. I don't know that I'd allow my kid to do that, but I support leaving the law the way it is

Typical paranoia of the gun owner. Stress "grizzly bear country". When was the last time someone was killed by a grizzly bear in the lower 48? Well gee, you would have to go all the way back to 1998. You are much more likely to be killed in "grizzly bear country" by another hunter, lightening or a fall than an actual bear.
4.17.2009 5:04pm
DennisN (mail):

Good, responsible people shun guns. Insecure, paranoid, irresponsible, delusional people who think they are good and responsible gravitate towards guns thinking they are are doing society a favor while in fact they are just raising level of fear and suspicion.


That is nothing but hysterical ieological ranting.
4.17.2009 5:05pm
pintler:

You are much more likely to be killed in "grizzly bear country" by another hunter, lightening or a fall than an actual bear.


If we're going to be rational about things, shouldn't we be focusing on 'car control' or 'nosocomial infection control'? Both kill a lot more people than are murdered.
4.17.2009 5:11pm
cboldt (mail):
-- That is nothing but hysterical ieological ranting. --
.
Similar in value and substance to Janet Napolitano's rightwing wingnut report.
4.17.2009 5:24pm
Fact Checker:
If we're going to be rational about things, shouldn't we be focusing on 'car control' or 'nosocomial infection control'? Both kill a lot more people than are murdered.

Well cars serve an important function in society. There is absolutely no proven benefit (as much as the John Lotts of the world would like to argue otherwise) to increased gun ownership. Except for legitimate sporting purposes, there is strong argument that guns are detrimental to an ordered society.
4.17.2009 5:24pm
cboldt (mail):
-- When was the last time someone was killed by a grizzly bear in the lower 48? Well gee, you would have to go all the way back to 1998. --
.
Well, Mr. Logical Fail, that just proves that letting people take their hunting rifles into the woods prevents death by grizzly bear.
4.17.2009 5:29pm
cboldt (mail):
-- Except for legitimate sporting purposes, there is strong argument that guns are detrimental to an ordered society. --
.
Perhaps I mistook you. Now that I see you are in favor of disarming the government, it's possible that we share some principle in the debate over firearms.
4.17.2009 5:32pm
Mark Jones (mail):
...I, or anyone else who thinks that the gun control laws in NYC, Chicago and DC are rational and sane and reasonable...


Anyone who thinks the gun control laws of NYC, Chicago or DC are "rational and sane and reasonable" is a hysteric, and far more delusional and paranoid than they paint their opponents as being.
4.17.2009 5:36pm
Earnest Iconoclast (mail) (www):
CityDuck,

I own an SKS semi-automatic rifle. I bought it because it cost $100 and I could use it for terget shooting. I did not want it for hunting OR self defense, though some people do hunt with them.

I initially bought a box of 500 "armor piercing" rounds for it. I bought them because they were steel core Chinese military surplus rounds for $0.10 each.

Someone made a target pistol chambered for 7.62x39mm so now the cheap steel core rounds are illegal (no AP for pistols) so now I must buy "hunting" rounds for $0.50 each.

Oh, and semi-automatic "assault weapons" are used in an insignificant number of crimes so preventing crime isn't an issue.
4.17.2009 5:48pm
whit:

I don't think there can be any argumet that the police are at fault based on their reaction time or lack of it. You can be murdered in a police station before help arrives.



your statement is not supported by evidence.
do you know how rural the area was, etc? she called the sheriff's office, which implies she was not within city limits, at least.

7-10 minutes response time is not at all uncommon, and certainly not the fault of the police in many rural areas.

heck, i know cops who work in very rural areas, where one cop covers an area larger than many cities, and then there are the windy roads, etc.

iow, you are assuming w/o evidence. not uncommon with the kneejerk "police are always wrong" crowd.

typical, in fact.
4.17.2009 5:49pm
Jagermeister:
I own hunting weapons so I'm no hoplophobe. But you don't hunt with armor piercing bullets, machine guns or semi-automatic rifles unless you're a total idiot.
I too was prepared to cry "BS" to Cityduck's claim to hunting knowledge, but perhaps his ignorance is real.

As other have alluded , most assaults on gun rights are based on misinformation and ignorance. To dismiss the single issue of "armor piercing bullets":

(1) Military armor piercing bullets have solid steel cores. Heavy weight non-fragmenting solid core bullets (using tungsten or steel) are used in hunting dangerous game (buffalo, etc.) where penetration and retention of bullet weight and shape are paramount. They are virtually indistinguishable.

(2) Some people (improperly) refer to bullets able to defeat ballistic vests (e.g. Kevlar) as "armour piercing" (as in "body armour"). Kevlar vests work by converting the kinetic energy of the bullet into heat that must melt its way through the layers of fabric. They can be defeated by high powered "nylon tipped" rifle bullets that "slip" through the weave of the fabric. These tips, known as ballistic tips, are added to bullets to preserve the streamlined shape of the bullet in the magazine, where the recoil of a rifle would cause the cartridge to be knocked back and forth, denting the bullet tip (if it were metal), destroying its aerodynamic shape, and causing the bullet to go astray. Preserving the tip's shape is important to preserving accuracy. Because most rifle cartridges have enough energy to defeat a standard vest even without the ballistic tip, it seems pointless (to make a pun) to ban ballistic tips. But that hasn't prevented the ignorant from trying to ban BTs.

(3) As far as I know, the only purpose made bullet, the KTW bullet, also known as the "cop-killer" bullet, was developed to add police in penetrating cars, windshields, and yes, body armour, and was never, and is not now, available to the public, nor has there ever been any intent to make the bullet available to the public. To the KTW bullet is irrelevant to the issue.

This is only ONE issue. But, here is the point, similar facts and analysis exist for every other issue - every one! "Assault weapons", .50 cal bans, guns to Mexico, semi-autos, lead bullets, microstamping, registration, the "47 time more likely to be used against you" stat, you name it. Every single issue being used to push for limitation of rights to firearms and ammunition is based on misinformation and distortion of facts. The "antis" have never had an honest case. When you look deeper into the issue, you always find deception, misinformation, and distortions. Always.

So you can now see why we defenders are so easily aroused. We are so used to be lied about and lied to. It behoves you to inform yourself before opining on firearms.
4.17.2009 5:53pm
marinetbryant:
The common, inexpensive "plinking" round, a Full Metal Jacket , even in 5.56/.223, will penetrate a 3/16" steel plate at 100 yards.

As for a little out-of-the-way farmhouse, ask the victims of In Cold Blood how the isolation worked out for them. Oh, you can't, they are dead.

I do admire those with advanced education but dear people, try to use some common sense.

Tom
4.17.2009 6:04pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
A. Zarkov:

I'm curious how you gleaned that I had not bothered to inform myself at all? From what I've posted, which is about my personal experience, I don't see how you could make any conclusion about how poorly or well informed I am. And this post isn't going to enlighten you either.

You asked for more details. I've had guns drawn on me four times in my life. I already described the incident with the woman in Texas. When that happened, I was pretty sure that if I did anything at all to respond to her, she would have shot me.

The first time was in high school. A teammate on my basketball team also dealt pot. One night after a game, he said "Wanna see something cool, and then had a pistol aimed at me." It was loaded, and I was pissed. He laughed and put it away.

The second time was on a subway platform on the A-Train line, up in Harlem. We had been forced to get off a broken train, and I was waiting for a new train to come through. Out of nowhere, a guy pulls a gun and aims it straight for me. From the look in his eye, it was clear he meant business. Then he said, "Drop it!" and the person standing right behind me, less than a foot away, dropped a fairly big knife that apparently had been pointing at my back. It turns out the guy with the gun was an off duty cop. I know absolutely nothing about why the guy with the knife was about to stab me.

The last time was at the crack house. I was locked out of my house, and had walked up and down the block several times, waiting for my roommates to return home. At one point, one of the guards at the crack house told me to hold it, and showed me his gun under his coat. He was holding onto it, but he didn't point it at me. He asked me what the fuck I was doing, and I told him I lived a couple of doors down and was locked out. He said I looked like a cop, and I should watch out, because I could get hurt. Then he said "Be cool" and that was the end of it.

The difference between him and the woman was I felt like I could talk to him and he would listen. Yes, he was a criminal and the woman probably considers herself law-abiding, but I felt in much more danger from the woman. Does that clarify things enough for you?
4.17.2009 6:20pm
RowerinVa (mail):
Cityduck, I took your invitation and reread all your posts at once, and here's what I learned: you claim to know what a "semiautomatic" means, but then prove you don't with such statements as "you don't hunt with ... semi-automatic rifles unless you're a total idiot" -- three of the most popular rifles for hunting are the .223 Remington caliber Ruger Mini-14 (that's the same caliber as an AR-15), the SKS (same caliber as the AK-47 and its semiautoclones), and the .22 caliber Ruger 10-22, all of which are semiauto. Is your point that everyone hunting with these guns is a total idiot? Based on what, other than your gut feeling?

As other posters point out, you grossly misunderstand how fast shotgun patterns "spread." The movie version, where you can pattern a whole wall from inside a room, is nonsense. At 50 yards (that's yards -- 150 feet) my duck gun patterns a little over three feet in diameter. At typical room distance of about 20 feet, it patterns about three inches in diameter. That's a tight hunting choke, but it's not much different for a open cylinder (totally open) barrel. One wonders how Hollywood explains the fact that Olympic skeet shooting (shooting flying clay targets, with shotguns) is considered difficult -- it wouldn't be, if the movie version of shotguns had any basis in reality.

You claim to own hunting shotguns. What kind? A large percentage, probably over 50% of hunting shotguns also are semiauto. (I couldn't get reliable figures on sales, but more than 50% of the guns for sale at stores, and above 70% of guns advertised in Ducks Unlimited Magazine for duck hunting, are semiauto.) All magazine-fed pistols -- which is the great majority of those sold in the US -- also are semiauto. Semiauto means one trigger pull, one shot, and self-loading from a magazine. Note that it's not necessarily a box or removable magazine -- Marlin's very popular .22 uses a tubular magazine, same as non-semiauto lever and pump guns.

You then use the straw man of talking about armor piercing ammo and machine guns. But no one is advocating true armor piercing rounds. Neither is anyone advocating machine guns, which are belt fed, swivel mounted, heavy-barreled, and feature quickly switchable barrels for changing out when they overheat. Perhaps you mean submachine guns, which are fully automatic and man-portable but fire pistol cartridges, and certainly can't penetrate armor? Nobody was advocating those either.

You then claim you don't follow the debate and don't know the nomenclature. Why, then, are you commenting, if you admit you are ignorant of the basic facts?

I don't mean to pick on you. I mean to point out that it's posts like yours -- passionate about outcomes, but factually inaccurate about the fundamentals -- that convince gun owners that antigun people are simply motivated by bias and emotion. If your goal is to persuade, you need to start by getting the facts correct. They may not change your mind but they will go a long way to establishing your bona fides.
4.17.2009 6:24pm
RowerinVa (mail):
Fact Checker writes:
"Except for legitimate sporting purposes, there is strong argument that guns are detrimental to an ordered society."

"Except for their legitimate transportation use, cars should be banned." What would that statement mean? What does your statement about guns mean? This isn't a rhetorical question -- I don't understand that statement. The exception seems to swallow the rule. What's a legitimate purpose?

Are you saying that a gun should be permitted if it's designed for hunting but not if it's designed for self-defense? In that case, are you permitted to use a gun for self defense if it was originally designed for hunting?

If the statement is only the last clause, "there is strong argument that guns are detrimental to an ordered society," why is that a "strong argument?" The UK, US, the Nordic countries, Switzerland, and Australia have high in-home gunkeeping either overall or in certain (rural) populations, and those countries (particularly the rural parts) score high on social order. Other countries with high gun ownership score low on measurements of social order. In the US and in most areas of the world, the areas with the lowest per capita rates of gun ownership -- dense cities -- are the places with the highest disorder, and I don't mean just disorder caused by gun violence; I mean crime of all types, most of which does not feature use of a gun. What's your evidence that gun ownership correlates positively or negatively with social order? Again, not a rhetorical question -- this is a real question. To put it in terms of your handle, I want to "Check" some "Facts."
4.17.2009 6:39pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
Whit,

As far as I could tell the post you single out was saying just that. That without more information there is no basis to judge whether 7.5 minutes is reasonable or not.

Many of the places I've lived 45 minute response times would have been amazing due to the number of personel available and distances involved.
4.17.2009 6:46pm
pintler:

If we're going to be rational about things, shouldn't we be focusing on 'car control' or 'nosocomial infection control'? Both kill a lot more people than are murdered.

Well cars serve an important function in society


Even hummers, corvettes, and ferraris? But anyway, enough about cars. Nosocomial infections kill almost an order of magnitude more people than are murdered. Even worse than that, you can greatly reduce your personal risk of murder by not engaging in the illicit pharmaceutical market, etc, but infections are an equal opportunity way to die.

Staphylococcus doesn't even have any pesky constitutional rights. What is the rational basis for not picking the low hanging fruit first, policy wise?
4.17.2009 7:08pm
whit:
soronel, yes in retrospect, i think i misread the post.
4.17.2009 7:08pm
More Importantly . . .:

But, frankly, the folks who want to own semi-automatic or automatic rifles, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc., creep me out. I seriously doubt that the NRA has many stories where those weapons were necessarily used in "self-defense."


CityDuck, as someown with the means and squeaky-clean background to get the necessary permits, I can tell you without any doubt that the very best tool for me to use to defend my home from nighttime invasion is a suppressed sub-machine gun (my choice is a customized version of the old HK MP5SD).

The three round burst setting is ideal for quickly placing more than one of the (relatively) small 9mm bullets into a target, the lowered velocity of the rounds from this particular weapon means less chance of shooting through my target and hitting an innocent, and the suppressor means that I won't instantly be blind and deaf after telling the intruder(s) where I am by firing.

In short, you know little about legitimate civilian use of firearms. Please consider keeping silent on issues about which you are unaware you know too little to speak intelligently.
4.17.2009 8:37pm
Siskiyou (mail):
Bit late on this, I am, but anyhow, has anyone noticed the disconnect on this thread? On the ostensible topic--the occasional and unpredictable necessity to use a firearm, and the lack of any other reasonable means, for self defense--Cityduck takes a terrible pounding. I feel for the fellow and, as he clearly knows little about California and doesn't sound like an Alaskan sort, I wonder where on this planet he really does live. Oregon, Washington and B.C. all present widely different firearms profiles (so to speak).

Yet if you read the discourse for what it is, Urinary Olympics, Ducky wins in a walkover! Retires the cup. (The cup, of course, is a little plasticy thing with "C'd" inscribed in permanent marker.)
4.17.2009 8:42pm
Siskiyou (mail):
Sorry, "...from the West Coast...." Sloppy reading on my part. Yet "from" only deepens the mystery.
4.17.2009 8:45pm
t-boy (mail):
Fact Checker said

Don't presume that I, or anyone else who thinks that the gun control laws in NYC, Chicago and DC are rational and sane and reasonable do not live in neighborhoods that do not struggle with levels of crime and violence that you can not even imagine. We know that more guns and more violence is not the answer to solving the underlying problems that plague our inner cities.

I don't accept that someone who can live with such crime and not want to arm themselves is sane or rational. I'm not yet so brainwashed, that I can't trust myself with a firearm.

Also, I am just as concerned about restrictions imposed on my rights protected by the first amendment such as McCain-Feingold. But this discussion is about the second. So don't use that strawman argument.

For the record, I have lived in big cities including D.C. I have been mugged a few times. I would have rather had a carry piece on me like I usually do now.

To More Importantly ... - Police in my city found that lower velocity hollow point ammo did not expand properly, and usually penetrated better than the Winchester Ranger type ammo at higher velocity. They were actually testing on SWAT rig similar to what you are talking about.
4.17.2009 9:28pm
Synova:
The three round burst setting is ideal for quickly placing more than one of the (relatively) small 9mm bullets into a target, the lowered velocity of the rounds from this particular weapon means less chance of shooting through my target and hitting an innocent, and the suppressor means that I won't instantly be blind and deaf after telling the intruder(s) where I am by firing.



Anything that is less likely to shoot through a wall shouldn't be banned, it should be required.

In some respects, though, I think that talking about self-defense is almost as misdirected as talking about hunting. Either way there is an implied acceptance of the idea that the right to own a weapon is dependent on some agreed upon utility.

It might actually make more sense to talk about being armed for the impending zombie apocalypse. Use a down-right silly hypothetical to avoid the problem of assuming a need for utility altogether. I don't suppose that would actually help though, because it's nearly certain that anyone who doesn't already get it, will think you're honestly worried about the zombie apocalypse. ;-)
4.17.2009 9:31pm
Synova:
The "more guns" = "more violence" and belief that sane, reasonable people do not *want* to be armed argument that Fact Check is going on about comes from the belief in a world without Sheep Dogs. If there are only Sheep and only Wolves, then anyone who isn't a Sheep is a Wolf and should be feared.

In a world view that accepts the existence of Sheep Dogs, there isn't automatic fear and distrust of someone who expresses that he or she is not a Sheep.
4.17.2009 9:35pm
Acksiom (mail) (www):
"No. I'm fine with someone owning a hunting rifle copying machine because it is legitimately used for hunting personal document reproduction as well as being usable for self-defense public freedom of speech (which is why I also have no problem with personal ownership of handguns cellphones). In fact, a shotgun mimeograph is a classic weapon tool of self-defense public freedom of speech precisely because of the spread automation. Automatic weapons The internet and armor piercing bullets print-on-demand not so much. I'm still waiting for all those NRA old media stories about how those types of weapons and bullets blogs and social media networks were necessary to someone's self-defense public freedom of speech."

"I see no legitimate reason for someone to want to own armor peircing bullets (sp) use print-on-demand unless they harbor a desire or fantasy of someday shooting someone publishing their work documenting government corruption."

"Because folks like me tend to inhabitat the middle of the gun rights debate and will be important voters when it comes to these issues. Unless you can articulate a case for personal ownership of something like armor piercing ammo print-on-demand, instead of reacting as you are here, you will never win the support of voters like me."

Does that explain it to you better?
4.17.2009 9:38pm
R7 (mail):
Cityduck, gun control is obsolete. It doesn't matter if the certain guns "creep you out". Ever heard of the term "Digital fabrication", "fablab", or "universal assembler". YOU are required to prove that your case for a ban on certain guns will actually stop their availability. The one who advocates restrictions on liberty must prove his case, not the other way around. With only a couple of links, I can easily demolish your argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhbdW9SxEM

http://cba.mit.edu/about/index.html
4.17.2009 9:43pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
Getting back a bit to the original post. Whit points out that the response time may not be unreasonable, given the general circumstances. But, nevertheless, it was unreasonable for the specific circumstances here, that someone was trying to break in. And if they police had arrived earlier, then the guy trying to break in might not have died.

But the other part of this is that the police were not, in the end, needed, except maybe to reduce the chance that the drunk didn't die, since the people in the house were armed.

And this is somewhat of a rebuke to the notion that we don't need guns for personal or home protection because the police are there to protect us. They may be, but often aren't. They can't be. There aren't enough of them, and they have other things that they need to do or are in the middle of doing when a call comes in.

Finally, my story (again) about police response. About 20 or so years go in Denver (City and County), we were at a party, and someone noticed what looked like a burglary in progress down the block. We called it in, then sat out on the front yard, to see what was going to happen. About 20 minutes later, 6-8 squad cars roll up en mass, about 10 minutes after the burglar had left. And, yes, it turned out that that was exactly what he was doing, breaking into a house.

My point with the story is that even in big cities, there are reasons that the cops cannot respond quickly enough to do any good.
4.17.2009 9:46pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
t-boy:

So your position is that anyone living in a high crime area who does not want to arm himself is either insane or irrational???? Really??? You don't think its possible for some sane people to decide to arm themselves and for other sane people to decide otherwise?
4.17.2009 9:46pm
Otpu (mail):
I think Cityduck may be a little unclear on the difference between highly expensive and illegal armor piercing ammo and cheap commonly available military surplus full metal jacket ammo.

Does somebody want to take on the task of enlightening him?
4.17.2009 9:48pm
R7 (mail):
Fact Checker said:
Good, responsible people shun guns. Insecure, paranoid, irresponsible, delusional people who think they are good and responsible gravitate towards guns thinking they are are doing society a favor while in fact they are just raising level of fear and suspicion.


If you accept evolution AND its implications, you would not say such an ignorant statement. Humans are subject to the rules of predator and prey just like any other animal. There is nothing "good" or "responsible" for being willfully ignorant.
4.17.2009 9:57pm
Michael Ejercito (mail) (www):

But, frankly, the folks who want to own semi-automatic or automatic rifles, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc., creep me out.

Folks like people who draw a government paycheck?
4.17.2009 10:04pm
blcjr (mail):
While I don't think City Duck is quite a "troll," he's had the effect of one on this posting. To bring it back on topic, AND to excite City Duck's imagination, I have several different kinds of firearms available for just the kind of situation that EV's post is all about -- "when the cops are just minutes away." I think City Duke has not expressed any disagreement with the basic proposition on the table -- that it is legitimate to be armed (here in one's house) for the purpose of defending one's self.

How does the KIND of firearm change any of this, and why should City Duke think that his opinion is any more relevant than mine as to what constitutes a suitable firearm to keep around for such matters? I do not hunt (any more). I keep firearms around for (a) protection and (b) fun. Both of these are legal uses. So why is City Duke be telling me what KIND of firearms are appropriate for these uses, and what kind are not? I do have an EBR. And I also have a 12 gauge that I keep loaded, and the slide racked, ready to go, with 00 buckshot. And I have either a pistol, or a revolver, somewhere near when I sleep.

Now does it really matter WHICH of these I use in a scenario like in EV's post? To the person on the receiving end, I think not. Dead is dead. If we can agree that lethal self defense is legitimate in this situation, then it doesn't matter what I use to put down the intruder.

City Duck's aversion to EBR's is irrational. He wants to rail against using them for hunting as inappropriate (though many do use them for this), when self defense, not hunting, is the topic for discussion. In that context, an EBR kept around for any reason at all is legitimate when put to this use. I don't even have to proffer a reason for keeping an EBR around, any more than I have to justify why I'm a Christian and not an atheist, or a Buddhist. Not all choices have to be justified, or comprehensible, to others. We just have to justify them to ourselves. The burden is always on those trying to constrain the choices of OTHERS. I don't have to explain to City Duck why I own an EBR. But he sure has to explain to me why he wants to deprive me of that right.

And that's what is creepy -- that he wants to deprive me of this right, but has yet to come up with a single good answer for doing so.
4.17.2009 10:06pm
Michael Ejercito (mail) (www):

Note that crime-ridden D.C. had one of the toughest gun control regimes, as does Chicago.

And those two places are counterexamples to the idea that gun control keeps peaceful people peaceful.


Good, responsible people shun guns.

So then you are implying that the Secret Service, the NYPD, the LAPD, and the Chicago PD are not good and responsible?

Certainly such a case can be made for the NYPD and the Chicago PD.
4.17.2009 10:11pm
whiskey (mail) (www):
City Duck does not hunt. Not at all.

Semi-automatic firearms include: the famous "humpback" semi-auto shotgun, circa 1905, designed by John Moses Browning.

Most men who shoot doves, and certainly sporting clays, use semi-auto shotguns such as Benellis or Berettas.

City Duck is no hunter. ANY hunter would know this.

Moreover, semi-auto rifles based on military patterns have a long history in hunting. AK-47s and AR-15's are often used as "brush guns" for lighter game, up close, where follow-on shots are needed. Javelinas, squirrels, ground hogs, etc. are often dispatched by those types of guns, and Ruger's famous "Mini-14" is famous as the "Ranch Rifle" used by ranchers and farmers to dispatch groundhogs, coyotes, rabid skunks and foxes, etc. They are quite handy.

ANY Hunter would know this.

The poster clearly knows nothing about guns, hunting, has likely never fired a gun in his/her life, and displays both profound and utter ignorance and contempt for firearms and firearm users. Likely the poster is a status-obsessed SWPL yuppie who's only hardship was when the corner coffee joint was out of mochachinos.

The whole point of being a yuppie is that yuppies alone possess the wealth and power to be safe, while everyone else is forced to live in fear. That's why Yuppies hate guns, they give ordinary people the ability to not be killed by some thug breaking into a house to murder or what have you.
4.17.2009 10:27pm
R7 (mail):
I concur with whiskey, that cityduck is being dishonest.
4.17.2009 10:37pm
Bill Quick (mail) (www):
I don't have common ground with those posters who believe that the 2nd Amendment, in contrast to the 1st, conveys an absolute right of unrestrained gun ownership. They seem to be denying reality and basic principles of Constitutional law.

If the gun controllers were willing to limit themselves to requesting restriction on gun ownership no more onerous than those placed on the exercise of the First Amendment, we might find we have more common ground than they imagine.

For instance, "no prior censorship," if applied in a similar manner to firearm ownership, would mean no prior limits placed on what sort of "arm" you could bear, and any penalties for misuse of said arms would have to be determined on an individual basis in a court of law.
4.17.2009 10:51pm
XBradTC (mail) (www):
Well, perhaps the issue here is nomenclature. I admit that I really don't pay much attention to the gun issue as its not an important one on the West Coast, so I haven't got the lingo of the debate down.

Let me translate: "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm right and you are wrong."

I'm pretty sure it was CityDuck I saw post a whole rant about this topic at his homepage. And any reasonable answer was met with the stubborn insistence that he was right, and everyone else would just have to bow to his superiority, notwithstanding his ignorance of the topic.
4.17.2009 11:19pm
Raspie (mail):
What a wonderful monologue.
I'd say conversation, but those anti-gunners involved aren't really participating due to lack of knowledge and lack of the basic rules of logic.

I'm new to guns. In fact, my first was purchased less than a year ago. I have now two semi-auto handguns, one revolver, one pump-shotgun, one bolt-action rifle and one semi-auto rifle. I'm alo eyeing another handgun (a 1911).

Despite what the anti-gunners would expect or want you to believe, I've not yet murdered anyone, committed an assault, robbed a bank or blown off a thumb. Only had a good time.

And as far as the 'sporting and hunting' canard, wherein gun control nuts pretend to respect some ancient American sporting gun tradition that they actually probably loathe: Guns are protected in the Constitution so that we can shoot deer or coyotes. They are protected so that we can shoot other people who are opressing us. That's how we became a free nation in the first place. That's how we freed the slaves. Pretending that never happened is quite disrespectful.
4.17.2009 11:25pm
DennisN (mail):
@whit:




I don't think there can be any argumet that the police are at fault based on their reaction time or lack of it. You can be murdered in a police station before help arrives

.
your statement is not supported by evidence.
do you know how rural the area was, etc? she called the sheriff's office, which implies she was not within city limits, at least.



Obviously my writing was not clear. I was attempting to say that no argument that the police were at fault can stand. In general, they can't respond quickly enough to save you. As I said, you can be murdered in the police station. They are never near enough when you really bneed them.

I'm not attacking the cops, just pointing out that they often can't protect you.
4.17.2009 11:39pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
DennisN,

Whit re-read the post in question and already agreed.
4.18.2009 12:44am
Brian G (mail) (www):
There was absolutely no reason for the man to murder Mr. Jones in cold blood and for no reason. This is perfect evidence of why guns should be banned. How does anyone know that Mr. Jones intended to hurt anyone. He could have been hungry and looking for food or might have been cold and needed shelter, which is certainly more likely thanks to the Bush depression. Now, we will never know what Mr. Jones intended. Instead, the gun nuts just assume that he was ill-intentioned.

And I noticed the pro-gun media added this part:


In 2005, Jones was found guilty in Botetourt County of brandishing a firearm and in 1999 and 2000 he was found guilty in Roanoke County of driving under the influence.


Anyone who took evidence knows in law school knows that Mr. Jones' killer (who should be charged with murder) did not know Mr. Jones' past history and therefore could not use that as a defense at trial.

I cannot believe how you people glorify people with itchy trigger fingers that can't wait to whack anyone who even thinks about going near their property. Perhaps a few murder convictions will set people straight.
4.18.2009 12:49am
R7 (mail):
Brian G. , another liar.
4.18.2009 1:52am
R7 (mail):
Are you just lying or are you just being sarcastic Brian G.?
4.18.2009 1:54am
Jen600 (mail):
This story seems suspiciously convenient to fit the narrative that we are being sold to justify the invasion of privacy of returning vets. And right on cue we have a poster (1:29) who offers up the narrative, bemoaning that it is not the fault of the poor, deranged soldier who is suffering mentally. Even more frightening to this chap is that "Current Iraq vets are killing themselves at rates well beyond previous rates" which I suppose means that they are even more dangerous than were those crazy Vietnam vets.

I'm not saying it didn't happen this way, I'm just saying that it seems a tad interesting that this was the story that was brought to the stage. This drama must play itself out on 911 calls with crack addicts, drunkards, crazy people, etc many times per week through out the US. Many of these stories end with actual rapes, assaults, murders or self-defense actions that are played out in real time on the 911 tapes. Yet, lo and behold, we are offered up THIS story right on cue.

I think we can expect much more of this type of assault on our veterans in the near future. Those of you who fall for it should be ashamed of yourself. But I know you won't be.

Just a thought, you might want to think twice next time Hill Welfod sends you a pointer.
4.18.2009 3:53am
Rusty (mail):
Before hving a firearm in your posetion became a felony in Illinois, I had a loaded semi-automatic under the seat of my car. I often had to drive through industrial parks late at night to make deliveries. I had to show it on two occaisions to get some rough types to look for someone else to rob.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or home invasion. Although the right to defend yourself is an absolute right, so it all works out. My personal opinion is that it should be legal to own any weapon that a soldier might be provided save for crew served weapons, and I'm even OK with some of those.

I'd much rather see reasonable restrictions to peoples right to vote than a persons right to defend themselves.
4.18.2009 5:50am
Soronel Haetir (mail):
Jen600,

No evidence has been adduced that the drunkard was actually a vet. There is plenty that he was not a vietnam vet.
4.18.2009 6:14am
noone of consequence:
Cityduck:

I smell a poseur. I know of NO hunter worth his salt who confuses "semi-automatic" with "military-arm." That would be like a weekend racer (hey, it's another hobby where you have to know at least a little bit) confusing "diesel-powered" with "tractor-trailer." Any racer worth anything knows that many cars, from Volkswagons to BMWs, are diesel-powered. and the analogy holds: neither "diesel" nor "semi-automatic" are in any way arcane to even the most casual practitioner.

Any hunter I've been with understands that many of the premium hunting rifles and shotguns are semis. They may not own any. They may even disdain them. But they won't confuse them.

I hate it when people who know nothing of firearms try to pass themselves off as practitioners based on casual exposure to movies or television.

As for banning those "evil" semi-autos, one of the most popular .22 rifles is a semi auto. And for hunting, let's see, a moment's look at google reveals:

http://hunting.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/tp_auto_rifles.htm

Stop pretending to be a hunter. It lends no credence to your argument when your own words refute you to those of us who did grow up hunting.


Carolina

"Military weapons - those that are fully automatic (i.e., machine guns) are not available to the public with a couple of exceptions not important here."

Interestingly, when I worked brielfy with them, the British Royal Marines has NO full-auto on their main battle rifles. Not refuting your primary point, just a little tidbit that some of the toughest SOBs on the planet still fired one round at a time :)
4.18.2009 9:58am
Tom Perkins (mail):
@ R7

I'm fairly sure that was sarcasm.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
4.18.2009 10:39am
D Kosloff (mail):
"This is perfect evidence of why guns should be banned." Thank you Brian G. Let nobody pretend any more about the goal of "gun-control" groups. I was active for gun-control for decades, while thinking that I also supported the Second Amendment in spirit and letter. I was wrong. It took the so-called "assault weapons" ban to reveal the truth to me.

Not only is there no "perfect evidence" of why guns should be banned, all of the real evidence shows that there should be more guns and more firearms training.
4.18.2009 10:41am
Kirk:
noone,

Do any of our troops get an issue rifle with full-auto (as opposed to burst) these days?
4.18.2009 11:50am
Mark in Texas (mail):
Duffy Pratt - So your position is that anyone living in a high crime area who does not want to arm himself is either insane or irrational???? Really??? You don't think its possible for some sane people to decide to arm themselves and for other sane people to decide otherwise?

A reasonable concern for one's own safety would seem to be an indication of good mental health. Persisting in unnecessary risky behavior can often be an indication of mental problems. Refusing to take measures to mitigate the risks and actively trying to prevent mitigation seem irrational to me. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that it is insane but it is not really rational.

If you are unwilling or unable to arm yourself in a dangerous environment, the reasonable thing would be to allow other sane, reasonable people who can satisfy the requirements for a concealed handgun license to go armed since you benefit from the "Lo-Jack effect" of criminals being uncertain just who is armed and who is not.
4.18.2009 12:34pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
As usual, some right winger comes on and mocks my commentary and says I must have been sarcastic. The guy didn't have to be shot. The cops were about to get there any minute. The shooter just didn't want to pass up the opportunity to shoot someone when he could get away with it. Happens all the time.

The Cowboy Bush years are over. Get used to it.
4.18.2009 12:55pm
Kirk:
Brian G.,

So which law school was it that taught you to conflate "even thinks about going near their property" and "shatters the glass door with a wrought-iron chair and tries to come in"? That's quite a feat of mental gymnastics.

The point here, as always, is that the people have a right to be safe and secure in their homes, and when someone uses force to enter we don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions. If Hoover had managed some other way to defuse the situation, that would been perfectly fine; it's only in your fevered imagination that anyone is "glorify[ing] people with itchy trigger fingers". Here in the real world, we have people like our host saying, "I'm glad that the Hoovers didn't have to run that risk." If you can't see the huge chasm between those two statements...
4.18.2009 1:21pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

The guy didn't have to be shot. The cops were about to get there any minute.

So things would have turned out better if the cops had killed the intruder? The guy was not deterred by the homeowner's pointing a gun at him -- what would the police have done in the ideal scenario?

What is the guy doing in the meantime? Simply waiting for the police to come; eating a bowl of Froot Loops and watching Duck Tales? Remember the guy is swinging a wrought iron patio chair.
4.18.2009 2:53pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
Mark in Texas:

As I've posted before, I've lived in several dangerous areas. Even if I knew how to use one, I have never been in a situation where I thought my possession or use of a firearm would increase my personal safety.

Putting other concerns aside, it takes considerable time, energy, and a fair bit of money to become proficient with firearms. Whether the benefits of having firearms is worth the investment of time and money is something I think reasonable people can disagree on.
4.18.2009 3:34pm
RAH (mail):
I also thought Brian G was being sarcastic. General opinion is that a shouting man at your back glass door banging on the door is a threat. The husband had a shotgun pointed at the man and was yelling he had a gun. If the intruder was that determined to get in with a certain death facing him he deserved to die.

No person has to allow a violent intruder in his or her home. I have a right to kill that person. I will not be concerned about his intentions. If it is a kid I may think about it while being armed. Some kids break into a friend's house to get the friend up and not intend any harm. More kids break into a house with ill intent and need to be stopped with lethal means if needed.

The person that determines the need for lethality is the one facing the threat.
4.18.2009 4:07pm
Rusty (mail):
Brian said," The shooter just didn't want to pass up the opportunity to shoot someone when he could get away with it. Happens all the time."



Oh yeah. Where?
4.18.2009 4:59pm
sfalphageek (mail):
You mean Brian G was serious? Wow, I thought his post was over the top as a parody of the typical leftist anti-gun rant.

Brian, two quick points:

I'm an SF soldier, I'm pretty good at unarmed combat, and under those circumstances, I would have done the same thing. Not only can hand to hand with someone who's trying to kill you go really bad really quick, but there was no telling at the time he was pouring in the window whether the attacker was armed. The fact that he was willing to smash a window to get to the Hoovers put him in the category of too dangerous to live. Even if Mr Hoover was aware that the police were "about to get there in a few minutes" he did the right thing - you can be dead in a few seconds. Not taking the shot would have put not only his life at risk, but that of his wife.

Second, the man was willing to smash through a plate glass window in the face of a shotgun pointed at his chest - what makes you think the police would have done anything differently? Or is it just that you believe that only agents of the government should have the right to self-defense?

More generally, I don't have any problem with someone who says "Under the same circumstances, I would have taken a beating and waited for the police instead of shooting the man." Fine. I think you're a damned fool, and likely to wind up dead and get your wife killed too, but that's your prerogative. What I do have a problem with is someone like Brian who wants to impose their cowardice on the rest of us.

@Kirk

Do any of our troops get an issue rifle with full-auto (as opposed to burst) these days?


My issue M4A1 carbine is fully automatic (actually selectable between semi-automatic and full auto.) It's the standard issue standard issue for SOF; the M4, used by conventional troops, is selectable between 3 round burst and semi-auto.

My Bushmaster M4 is semi-auto only, but I can keep it at my house or behind the seat of my truck, and I can use my Eotech with it. It's an awesome plinking gun, and capable of making quite a dent in the local coyote population.
4.18.2009 5:34pm
IK (mail):
I thought the same thing about the Brian dude - surely something that dumb had to be in jest. I mean, how many of us here have had our doors broken down from some poor person just looking for food or shelter or Direct TV with all the HBO channels? More times that I can count.

SF dude - what's the verdict on the 5.56 round in combat? Is it too small, or OK with the 75 and 77 grain bullets? Are the 6.8 mm getting out to the troops?

I had a M16 during my 11H days in the Army, but it had a 20" bbl on it for more velocity, and the 203 to solve problems, so I didn't feel out gunned.
4.18.2009 5:58pm
Kirk:
sf,

Thanks for the info!
4.18.2009 6:06pm
juris_imprudent (mail):
I see no reason to protect guns more than speech, and I can see good arguments why guns should be afforded less protection.

The day the 2nd Amdt gets the treatment/respect afforded the 1st is the day I'll be buying a full auto with no background check. Yippee!!!
4.18.2009 7:02pm
R7 (mail):
Brian G.:
As usual, some right winger comes on and mocks my commentary and says I must have been sarcastic. The guy didn't have to be shot. The cops were about to get there any minute. The shooter just didn't want to pass up the opportunity to shoot someone when he could get away with it. Happens all the time.


The Cowboy Bush years are over. Get used to it.


The guy smashes through the door with an improvised weapon! I really do think you're being sarcastic, pretending to be an anti-selfdefense moron. Reminds me of the Poe's Law for Young Earth Creationist morons.

For those of you not familiar with Poe's Law, here it is:
Poe's Law relates to fundamentalism, and the difficulty of identifying actual parodies thereof. It suggests that, in general, it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they may both espouse equally extreme beliefs. Poe's law also works in reverse: real fundamentalism can also be indistinguishable from parody fundamentalism.

In affect, there had been real creationists and real anti-gunners who espoused ideas so retarded that it was impossible to tell if they're real or fake.
4.18.2009 9:14pm
Synova:
So Brian G claims not to be a gun-nut making a pro-gun point?

Waiting to be murdered or raped in order to be certain that a murder or rape is actually what an attacker intends is what police and courts are for. In order to deserve to be convicted and punished a person has to actually commit the crime.

There is never ever a point where it becomes certain that a murderer is going to murder you until it actually happens. (The fellow might *miss* as well!) And just because you're tied up or drugged doesn't mean for *certain* that you're going to be raped.

It's important not to over react.

And afterward, police and the courts will punish the criminal.
4.18.2009 9:28pm
Mark Buehner (mail):

The guy didn't have to be shot. The cops were about to get there any minute.

Somebody should have explained that to the intruder. How long does it take to kill somebody by the way? Considering the homeowner managed to kill the intruder before the cops got to the scene, logic would dictate the opposite would have been possible.

The cops would have been there to clean up the mess at least.
4.19.2009 12:11pm
Mark Buehner (mail):
And btw there should be a requirement that every gun thread has a definition of 'semi-automatic' in the header. It would save so much time and aggravation. Such a scary word for such a common weapon type.
4.19.2009 12:14pm
luxurytwist:
So sad for Brian G. Satire is hard. At least it's hard to do well. And some people make it even harder, because it's almost impossible to humorously go extra-over-the-top beyond where those people actually are.

Or perhaps that's his deliberate subtext. If so, good show.
4.19.2009 2:39pm
Wm (mail):
The burden of uncertainty needs to fall on the perpetrator. If their risk for invading a home is getting shot, that risk should be as plainly on them as possible.

Fabricating a "duty" that imminent bodily harm must first be met with some supposedly non-lethal alternative, has the effect of putting the burden of uncertainty on the victim.

Mr. Hoover exhausted all rational non-lethal resort when he verbally warned the perp. He did his duty; he did not fire through the door, for instance.

As soon as his life, and that of his wife, were in reasonable danger, however...

That's the distinction that must be recognized. Assuming a grievous threat, was it immediate? If not, then we can speak of his duty to preserve life.

If it *was* an immediate threat, though, the right to defend his own and his family's life must not be infringed.

At least that's my amateur understanding of the law. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate getting set straight by one of you pros.
4.20.2009 2:21am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.