Discuss.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice shooting.
Note that the family did try hiding first.
Cant believe the guy survived. Should have used a shotgun.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So hiding with your child until they find you = trigger happy?
Shooting someone who isn't dropping/stopping somehow makes that person a victim? That person that broke into your place, caused you to grab your children and hide, and when they found you hiding did not stop and flee, (oh yah, they where going through the house looking closely for things to steal, so couldn't have not noticed all the kids toys and stuff around), yah lets have sympathy there. . .
And it seems the writers opinion is that anyone that does not share their view, pretty opinionated, one-sided, and not at all unbias, are "tweeps" that say crazy-talk about maybe its better to have a gun, rather than discuss what might have happened if she didn't. . .
The only reason I see for this article, beyond the writer trying to appeal to people with similar belief's emotions is media sensationalism or to mae other mad just for the sake of making others mad.
To note, the MSN version of the story used the "Trigger-happy" version until someone called them on it and they quickly changed it.
I'm not fond of guns. I think America needs a ton more control over them. But this is a reasonable use of them. She didn't walk into the guys house and shoot him - he broke into hers, hunted until he found her, and got a face full of lead for his trouble.
Shame he didn't get one in the groin, too.
My sympathies are entirely to the mother and child who will now have quite possibly have nightmare about having to defend themselves and the aftermath of that, not to the criminal who had no right to be there.
|
A Gun is a tool created for the express intention of killing your enemy as easily as possible. You really only have to aim and pull the trigger - that means that whenever someone is holding a gun, people around him are stuipdly close to dead.
Having a gun to defened yourself is not a good thing, I think. Surley there are ways to defend yourself without having the power to kill at your disposal. Maybe instead of live ammo have something like a dart gun with traunqulizer? Or rubber bullets? Even some kinds of mace or pepper spray should be able to do the job.
I am obviously no expert on defeneding one's houshold against burglars or rapists or murderes or whatever, but I somehow have the certainty that if the appropriate resources would be applied to the problem, the U.S (or anyone else) could come up with some wacky gadget to disable and maim without endangering death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I like shooting guns. It's fun. Also, grouse is very tasty. Jackrabbit not so much.
I certainly support continued research in non-lethal technology that could be used to protect people. Until those means are truly effective, I think we need the non-perfect tools we now have.
It should be noted that the woman in the story used a revolver and not a semi-automatic weapon.
Having a gun to defened yourself is not a good thing, I think. Surley there are ways to defend yourself without having the power to kill at your disposal. Maybe instead of live ammo have something like a dart gun with traunqulizer?
Absolutely not. Tranquilizers take time to take effect, and require a carefully measured dose based on the size and weight of the individual being tranqued (get it wrong, and it'll either not knock the person out or it'll kill them). In a self defense situation, you most likely have the wrong dosage, and it'll take too long to take effect, anyway.
Or rubber bullets? Even some kinds of mace or pepper spray should be able to do the job.
In some situations this could be effective, yes, but not everywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Working as intended.
A Gun is a tool created for the express intention of killing your enemy as easily as possible. You really only have to aim and pull the trigger - that means that whenever someone is holding a gun, people around him are stuipdly close to dead.
Having a gun to defened yourself is not a good thing, I think. Surley there are ways to defend yourself without having the power to kill at your disposal. Maybe instead of live ammo have something like a dart gun with traunqulizer? Or rubber bullets? Even some kinds of mace or pepper spray should be able to do the job.
I am obviously no expert on defeneding one's houshold against burglars or rapists or murderes or whatever, but I somehow have the certainty that if the appropriate resources would be applied to the problem, the U.S (or anyone else) could come up with some wacky gadget to disable and maim without endangering death.
Actually having trained with non-lethal weapons for security, I can attest that sometimes mace, TAZER, rubber/bean bag ammo do not work on some people. I once was forced to use mace on someone trying to attack me and they kept coming at me unaffected. If I didn't have a fellow co-worker help me take him down, I might have gotten hurt quite a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna go ahead and leave this here...
I love this guy. So much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely not. Tranquilizers take time to take effect, and require a carefully measured dose based on the size and weight of the individual being tranqued (get it wrong, and it'll either not knock the person out or it'll kill them). In a self defense situation, you most likely have the wrong dosage, and it'll take too long to take effect, anyway.
So...tranq darts shouldn't be used because, if used incorrectly, THEY MIGHT KILL SOMEONE?!
*head asplode*
Absolutely not. Tranquilizers take time to take effect, and require a carefully measured dose based on the size and weight of the individual being tranqued (get it wrong, and it'll either not knock the person out or it'll kill them). In a self defense situation, you most likely have the wrong dosage, and it'll take too long to take effect, anyway.So...tranq darts shouldn't be used because, if used incorrectly, THEY MIGHT KILL SOMEONE?!
*head asplode*
I believe the point is that if you are trying to use a non-lethal method of home defense, you may not want to use one that can be either ineffective or do precisely what you don't want it to do; kill someone.
Looks like a "clean" shoot. Nice job, lady!
Having a gun to defened yourself is not a good thing, I think.
Agreed, however it is the second least bad alternative.
Surley there are ways to defend yourself without having the power to kill at your disposal. Maybe instead of live ammo have something like a dart gun with traunqulizer?
They take a minute or two to kick in, need to be dosed to the weight of he thing you're shooting, and if you shoot a spot thats not covered by bone (ie, center of mass) are probably going to just go right into the person like a bullet anyway.
Or rubber bullets?
Dunno how effective those are.
Even some kinds of mace or pepper spray should be able to do the job.
I've been maced or peppersprayed twice with pretty minimal effect. Even blind and wheezing, the ex con with a crow bar could have easily killed the lady and her kids.
I am obviously no expert on defeneding one's houshold against burglars or rapists or murderes or whatever, but I somehow have the certainty that if the appropriate resources would be applied to the problem, the U.S (or anyone else) could come up with some wacky gadget to disable and maim without endangering death.
They're trying, but biology is a funny thing.
I believe the point is that if you are trying to use a non-lethal method of home defense, you may not want to use one that can be either ineffective or do precisely what you don't want it to do; kill someone.
Can you think of a "nonlethal" method of defense that can't be lethal in the right circumstances? People die from tazers and pepper spray, too.
There is no non-lethal, just less lethal, so decrying the use of a less lethal method because it isn't non-lethal is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While Im not advocating guns, non-lethal means lose a significant amount of the threat that make them useful deturants for situations like this. Rubber bullets like blanks can easily be lethal, directly or indirectly.
At the same time we already know just what will (likely) happen if we restrict guns in the US. Legal gun ownership AND ONLY legal gun ownership will decrease leaving the individuals most of us want to be able to defend their family and selves helpless and increasing methods of keeping all the methods and technology ever further advanced than the gov or polices ability to keep up. Essentually hurting everyone but the ones it is designed to actually hinder.
I believe the point is that if you are trying to use a non-lethal method of home defense, you may not want to use one that can be either ineffective or do precisely what you don't want it to do; kill someone.Can you think of a "nonlethal" method of defense that can't be lethal in the right circumstances? People die from tazers and pepper spray, too.
There is no non-lethal, just less lethal, so decrying the use of a less lethal method because it isn't non-lethal is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Watch a few wildlife videos where they tranquilize something: at the proper dosage the thing usually keeps running for a few minutes before it stops. A tranquilizer gun that's anything more than a paper thin excuse is going to take too long to kick in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of guns, but using a pistol in self defense isn't the problem. The issue is automatic weapons, those aren't self defense weapons.
From what I understand, automatic weapon ownership is fairly uncommon as current firearms laws already restrict them heavily. I have more of a problem with weapons that are clearly designed to mimic standard issue military weapons as closely as is allowable under existing firearms laws. The AR-15 is one of the most popular firearms in the country, and it was literally originally designed as an infantryman rifle - the only difference being that the version that made its way into military use had selective-fire capabilities (including automatic fire). This is not a hunting weapon (though it gets used as one). It is not a sport-shooting weapon (though it gets used as one). It is not a self-defense weapon (as much as AR-15 owners might like to claim it is). It has a standard capacity of 20 or 30 rounds per magazine (and you can purchase magazines as large as 100 rounds), and is expressly designed for a singular end-goal: to make the killing of as many enemy targets as you care to engage as efficient as possible. There is literally no reason for a civilian to own a weapon like this, and plenty of reasons not to.
At the same time we already know just what will (likely) happen if we restrict guns in the US. Legal gun ownership AND ONLY legal gun ownership will decrease leaving the individuals most of us want to be able to defend their family and selves helpless and increasing methods of keeping all the methods and technology ever further advanced than the gov or polices ability to keep up.
Prolific statistical evidence shows clearly and conclusively that more restrictive firearms laws tend to reduce firearms homicides and firearms-related crime on the whole. What you are saying is a fiction invented by gun's rights advocates that is not in evidence.
I believe the point is that if you are trying to use a non-lethal method of home defense, you may not want to use one that can be either ineffective or do precisely what you don't want it to do; kill someone.Can you think of a "nonlethal" method of defense that can't be lethal in the right circumstances? People die from tazers and pepper spray, too.
There is no non-lethal, just less lethal, so decrying the use of a less lethal method because it isn't non-lethal is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think part of the problem is if it is too low of a dose, you are just likely to piss off whatever you are shooting at. Also this guy got hit 5 times with a gun and was still able to get up and get back to his car and try to drive away, you think a single dart was going to take him down? Or are we going to have semi-automatic dart guns?
|
|
While true, its a smoke screen arguement as the vast majority of crimes and violence do not involve ARs or automatic weapons. They involve handheld pistols followed by knives followed by basically everything else (clubs, cars swords, etc) followed by automatic weapons/ARs next to last on the list. Shotguns are high as well. (obviously not accounting for military conflicts). Again I agree that ARs and/or automatic weapons should not be legal to the public (if at all), they are not the issue.
While true, its a smok screen arguement as the vast majority of crimes and violence do not involve ARs or automatic weapons. They involve handheld pistols followed by knives followed by basically everything else (clubs, cars swords, etc) followed by automatic weapons/ARs.
And yet you wouldn't be in favor of restricting civilian ownership of handguns, or firearms in general, I would imagine.
Regardless of what types of weapons are used in the majority of homicides, it is certain that AR-15s have enormous destructive capability that far outstrips their practical, legal, civilian use. Unsurprisingly, they have been employed on multiple occasions by mass/spree killers in events that likely would have resulted in a lower body count had they not had access to a weapon like an AR-15. It's not a smoke screen argument if we're only advocating a ban on those weapons. It may not dramatically reduce firearms-related homicide, but it might reduce them marginally (and remember, we're talking about lives, here) and it wouldn't harm anything but firearm enthusiasts' pride.
Shotguns are high as well. (obviously not accounting for military conflicts)
Not really. The FBI reported in 1993 that only 5% of murders were committed with shotguns, compared with 3% with rifles and 57% with handguns. Compared to handguns, everything else is pretty low on the list. More recent data from California (2009 and 2010) show rifles being used more often than shotguns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People should be able to feel safe in their own homes. I have no qualms about someone using a gun to defend themselves in their own home. Let's face it, the police can't do much for you until you are a victim. Thats just the truth, I have seen it several times in my own life.
It would be great if someone came up with something non-lethal that was 100% effective. Until then, I guess we use what we have at hand.
And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I'm not arguing FOR tranq guns, just AGAINST the argument that we shouldn't use less lethal deterrents on the grounds that they may, in fact, be lethal.
Because that's pretty silly.
Lets stay on topic here the story isn't about semi-auto weapons. Its about a person defending themselves and then being made out to look like an insane blood thirsty murder.
While unfortunate, this is the headline on a news snippet from a website named "OMG Ghana". I haven't seen any well-respected news site sensationalizing this story to demonize the shooter, and even the source link (the AJC) from OMG Ghana is a pretty level-headed report of what happened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.
Indeed. Various studies indicate that merely having access to a firearm makes you anywhere from 2 to 10 times as likely to commit suicide as someone without access.
And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.Well, dogs serve more often as alarms and deterrents than by actually killing the intruder.
Yeah, unfortunately I'm almost positive that the majority of dog-related death victims are under 5 years old.
EDIT: Now I'm actually positive. Of the 31 reported dog fatalities in 2012, 16 were young children.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a clean shoot to me. If the "alleged burglar" hadn't been in her house illegally he'd still have his head with the prerequisite amount of holes.
I know plenty of people that own guns. They're responsible with them. They don't mind background checks and they don't mind waiting periods. I also favor stricter gun control laws that make it more difficult for maniacs to stock up so they can go to "gun-free" zones and shoot fish in a barrel.
This discussion would be easier to have if guys like the one who wrote the article weren't screaming on the one side with the NRA lobbyists screaming back from the other. Why do we let the unstable ones set the tone for the discussion?
Sounds like a clean shoot to me. If the "alleged burglar" hadn't been in her house illegally he'd still have his head with the prerequisite amount of holes.
I know plenty of people that own guns. They're responsible with them. They don't mind background checks and they don't mind waiting periods. I also favor stricter gun control laws that make it more difficult for maniacs to stock up so they can go to "gun-free" zones and shoot fish in a barrel.
This discussion would be easier to have if guys like the one who wrote the article weren't screaming on the one side with the NRA lobbyists screaming back from the other. Why do we let the unstable ones set the tone for the discussion?
I don't think that they do. Again, the website is OMG Ghana. They are not a national media source (at least, not for this nation).
Absolutely not. Tranquilizers take time to take effect, and require a carefully measured dose based on the size and weight of the individual being tranqued (get it wrong, and it'll either not knock the person out or it'll kill them). In a self defense situation, you most likely have the wrong dosage, and it'll take too long to take effect, anyway.So...tranq darts shouldn't be used because, if used incorrectly, THEY MIGHT KILL SOMEONE?!
*head asplode*
It's more the fact that you have to tailor the dose to the individual you want to shoot. That alone makes it very impractical for self defense. Add in the fact that it takes a while to work, and it's right out.
Lets stay on topic here the story isn't about semi-auto weapons. Its about a person defending themselves and then being made out to look like an insane blood thirsty murder.While unfortunate, this is the headline on a news snippet from a website named "OMG Ghana". I haven't seen any well-respected news site sensationalizing this story to demonize the shooter, and even the source link (the AJC) from OMG Ghana is a pretty level-headed report of what happened.
If you click on the link and go to their main site, you'll see they have since scrubbed off the "trigger-happy" description, though if you do a google search I think you can still find evidence of it.
Of course this might not qualify as a "well-respected news site", depending on one's view and current needs.
|
|
And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.Well, dogs serve more often as alarms and deterrents than by actually killing the intruder.
And unlike a gun CAN kill on their own with no human choice.