5 Home Invaders Stopped by AR-15

[Coyote]

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

 

[Coyote]

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Only to those who would be predisposed to obeying them.

Those same people who obey laws would never even think of taking a weapon to a school and shooting up children.

So, we see that laws do NOT prevent killers from killing.

I disagree. Many of those mass shooters were never before in trouble with the law. They were predisposed to obey the law...until they didn’t.

Of the gun murders committed in the country, mass shooters only exceeded over 100 deaths in one year, 2017..... out of 11,004 gun murders in 2016...... mass public shooters are not a problem, they are the rarest of rare shootings....lawn mowers kill more people every single year than mass shooters do..... the majority of shooters are career criminals murdering other career criminals.... yet you don't want to focus on actually stopping them...in fact, you support a political party that keeps letting violent, repeat gun offenders out of prison over and over again.... and then you pass gun laws that target law abiding gun owners, the ones not shooting anyone....

Do you see why we think you are irrational morons?

Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75

(Lawn Mower Accidents Rise This Time of Year | MU News Bureau)


2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

You keep ignoring a difference. Lawn mowers are not made for the purpose of killing people. AR15’s are. That is their only purpose.

 

[jon_berzerk]

View attachment 189217
More lives saved.

Home Invasion Victims Use AR–15 To Defend Themselves Against Five Armed Intruders

Related:

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

5 Home Invaders Stopped by AR-15

actually it was 7 intruders

two shot dead

it took almost 30 rounds to resolve the situation

 

[jon_berzerk]

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

 

[Coyote]

Yes, guns dont stop home invaders, people do. Fkn moron.

"whoosh" is right......it went right over her head the reason for the 2nd .....yours too?

You know what that stupid circular argument is? A deceptive way you try to justify your fears and put criminals on the same plane as law abiding gun owners.

Criminals don't need guns to be criminals. Plenty proof of that. It's not the gun.
Your stupid argument is like saying criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they didn't have a gun. CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES. It's what they do.

But law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves from crazed mentally ill Lefties who commit the vast majority of aggravated crimes.
Also plenty proof of that. GUNS are the only way MANY single 100lb moms protect their families at night.

The question is why do YOU want to make sure women and children especially, become victims and easy targets for criminals? What's wrong with you?
Do you like criminals THAT much?

Ironically...this whole debate is pointless.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self protection. It's about not becoming the next Venezuela. Or Russia or China.
Of course, your kind is so stupid you think those are model societies.

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

All laws do is provide a method of determining punishment for bad behavior. Laws don't prevent that behavior. If they did, there would be no murder, no rape, no kidnapping etc. Just look at all of those countries that have the laws you want. They still have gun crime, and in the case of Europe the recent influx of refugees has seen a coincidental massive increase in gun crimes. It ain't the gun Coyote, it is the person who decides to use it.

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

 

[Coyote]

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

 

[BlackSand]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

 

[jon_berzerk]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

these happenings mostly happen in unarmed areas

you see unlike the criminal the law abiding do not carry in gun frees zones such as this restaurant

 

[jon_berzerk]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

 

[Coyote]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

 

[BlackSand]

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

I was addressing the silliness of the argument.
It would be the same thing to suggest civilians couldn't own a Hummer because the military cuts a hole in the roof and mounts a .50 on them.

.​

 

[jon_berzerk]

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

no not as a condition to keep and bear arms

that resides with the people

 

[Pop23]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

nothing is "more costly" then losing your life while committing a crime

the old saying goes

an armed society is a polite society

We have an armed society...it does not seem very polite to me.

You need to find better friends perhaps.

 

[Coyote]

Jam

Are their levels of gun crime comparable to ours? Mass shootings?

And to be clear, I do not advocate total gun control, I do not think military grade weapons should be in civilian hands. That is reasonable regulation.

But ... You aren't talking about military grade firearms.
You are referring to civilian firearms produced to different standards for civilian use, not military use.

.​

You aren't talking about military grade firearms.


true

just to clarify

the 2nd amendment specifically covers "military weapons"

and clearly states well regulated...

no not as a condition to keep and bear arms

that resides with the people

The 2nd Amendment is simple, as such people add loads of interpretation.

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? | The New Yorker

 

[Pop23]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Only to those who would be predisposed to obeying them.

Those same people who obey laws would never even think of taking a weapon to a school and shooting up children.

So, we see that laws do NOT prevent killers from killing.

I disagree. Many of those mass shooters were never before in trouble with the law. They were predisposed to obey the law...until they didn’t.

Of the gun murders committed in the country, mass shooters only exceeded over 100 deaths in one year, 2017..... out of 11,004 gun murders in 2016...... mass public shooters are not a problem, they are the rarest of rare shootings....lawn mowers kill more people every single year than mass shooters do..... the majority of shooters are career criminals murdering other career criminals.... yet you don't want to focus on actually stopping them...in fact, you support a political party that keeps letting violent, repeat gun offenders out of prison over and over again.... and then you pass gun laws that target law abiding gun owners, the ones not shooting anyone....

Do you see why we think you are irrational morons?

Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75

(Lawn Mower Accidents Rise This Time of Year | MU News Bureau)


2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

More have been dying and mass shootings worse since high capacity magazines and AR style rifles have become popular.

Nope, those were available long before the uptick in mass shootings and they were rare.

The change appears to be the result of prescribing SSRI antidepressants.

But the left loves big pharma.

 

[BlackSand]

The 2nd Amendment is simple, as such people add loads of interpretation.

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? | The New Yorker

One only has problems interpreting it when they want it to mean something it doesn't.

On the other hand ... I personally don't mind if politicians and pundits want to stake their political viability on their desire to ban civilian firearms.
It will make them easier to identify ...

.​

 

[asaratis]

Also, criminals would not comply with a law banning any or all guns.

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

When a proposed law intended to remove a God given right punishes only law abiding citizens, it should not be passed.

 

[asaratis]

Over 30 rounds fired in a trailer, sounds like they endangered everyone around.

According to investigators, the invasion “escalated” as the result of conflict between the two groups “that was stoked by social media threats.”

Something tells me both sides were threatening, no real good guy here.

Something tells me that any home invader wearing a mask is there to do harm...not to argue.

 

[Coyote]

Of course not. Just like they comply with other laws. Why have any laws?

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Deterrence works only on law abiding people. Criminals seem to ignore them.

Some people are law abiding. Deterrence isn’t needed. But if it becomes to hard or too costly to commit a crime, a criminal might not. There will always be those who find away. Just because a law doesn’t stop 100% doesn’t mean we should ditch it.

When a proposed law intended to remove a God given right punishes only law abiding citizens, it should not be passed.

There is no God given right that says you can have any weaponry you want.

 

[asaratis]

Laws exist to meter out punishment AFTER the fact.

Every law does this. Every....single...one.....of....them.

Laws also exist to act as a deterrence.

Only to those who would be predisposed to obeying them.

Those same people who obey laws would never even think of taking a weapon to a school and shooting up children.

So, we see that laws do NOT prevent killers from killing.

I disagree. Many of those mass shooters were never before in trouble with the law. They were predisposed to obey the law...until they didn’t.

One's never getting in trouble with the law does not equal predisposition to obeying the law. Logic failure.

Nor does it equal a predisposition to breaking the law.

But it may hide one.