Two Ways to Help Stop Mass Shootings

[2aguy]

Here's just one example, from a right wing newspaper. Piers Morgan hails 'hero' homeowner who fought off four armed raiders to protect wife upstairs as he says 'he would have taken on 100'

Yeah.....that is "one example."

But you just said this doesn't happen........

In the U.S.....

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm#FN;F64

C. In Homes and on the Street​

Rengert and Wasilchick's book about how burglars work reveals that fear of armed homeowners played a major role in determining burglary targets. Burglars reported that they avoided late-night burglaries because, "That's the way to get shot." [FN63] Some burglars said that they shun burglaries in neighborhoods with people of mostly a different race because, "You'll get shot if you're caught there." [FN64]
The most thorough study of burglary patterns was a St. Louis survey of 105 currently active burglars. [FN65] The authors observed, "One of the most serious risks faced by residential burglars is the possibility of being injured or killed by occupants of a target. Many of the offenders we spoke to reported that this was far and away their greatest fear." [FN66]

Said one burglar: "I don't think about gettin' caught, I think about gettin' gunned down, shot or somethin'...'cause you get into some people's houses...quick as I come in there, boom, they hit you right there. That's what I think about."


Another burglar explained:

Hey, wouldn't you blow somebody away if someone broke into your house and you don't know them? You hear this noise and they come breakin' in the window tryin' to get into your house, they gon' want to kill you anyway. See, with the police, they gon' say, "Come out with your hands up and don't do nothing foolish!" Okay, you still alive, but you goin' to jail. But you alive. You sneak into somebody's house and they wait til you get in the house and then they shoot you.. . .See what I'm sayin'? You can't explain nothin' to nobody; you layin' down in there dead! [FN67]

In contrast, Missouri is one of only nine states which has no provision for citizens to be issued permits to carry handguns for protection. Thus, a criminal in St. Louis faces a very high risk that the target of a home invasion may have a lawful gun for protection, but minimal risk that the target of a street robbery will have a lawful firearm for defense. The same authors who studied active St. Louis burglars conducted another study of active St. Louis armed robbers. [FN68] They found that "ome of the offenders who favored armed robbery over other crimes *355 maintained that the offense was also safer than burglary. . .." [FN69] As one armed robber put it: "My style is, like, don't have to be up in nobody's house in case they come in; they might have a pistol in the house or something." [FN70]
On the streets, many of the St. Louis robbers "routinely targeted law-abiding citizens," [FN71] who, unlike their counterparts in most American states, were certain not to be carrying a gun for protection. Law-abiding citizens were chosen as robbery victims because, as one robber noted, "You don't want to pick somebody dangerous; they might have a gun themselves." [FN72]
In addition to the St. Louis study, the Wright-Rossi National Institute of Justice surveyed felony prisoners in eleven state prison systems on the impact of victim firearms on burglar behavior. [FN73] In that survey, seventy-four percent of the convicts who had committed a burglary or violent crime agreed, "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot." [FN74]

 

[2aguy]

Here's just one example, from a right wing newspaper. Piers Morgan hails 'hero' homeowner who fought off four armed raiders to protect wife upstairs as he says 'he would have taken on 100'

And this...

Burglary rates were: United States 695.9; England and Wales, 946.1;


Northern Ireland, 658.7; and Scotland, 479.1. So the overall UK burglary rate is significantly worse (considering that England and Wales contain 89 percent of the UK population, and the burglary rate is more than one‐third higher than in the United States). More important, the manner in which burglaries take place in the UK is much worse.

In the United States, only a fairly small percentage of home burglaries take place when the occupants are home, but in Great Britain, about 59 percent do.94 In surveys, American burglars say that they avoid occupied homes because of the risk of getting shot.95



English burglars prefer occupied homes because there will be wallets and purses with cash, which do not have to be fenced at a discount.


British criminals have little risk of confronting a victim who possesses a firearm. Even the small percentage of British homeowners who have a legal gun would not be able to unlock the firearm from one safe, and then unlock the ammunition from another safe (as required by law), in time to use the gun against a criminal intruder.96 It should hardly be surprising, then, that Britain has a much higher rate of home‐invasion burglaries than does the United States.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/costs-consequences-gun-control#

 

[Vagabond63]

More burglaries in the U.K. happen when the victims are at home than they do in the U.S....

An Englishman's home is his dungeon

But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term.


Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present.

But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn't been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. "I wasto defend myself," said Miss Best. "I thought if I did anything I would be arrested." There speaks the modern British crime victim.

A story from 2004 from another dubious source.. OMG we must be all pissing ourselve in terror by now... Quick get out the shotguns Dierdre! ROFL!

 

[2aguy]

A story from 2004 from another dubious source.. OMG we must be all pissing ourselve in terror by now... Quick get out the shotguns Dierdre! ROFL!

Yeah.....you have to deflect from the 59% of burglaries that turn violent in Britain ........

 

[Vagabond63]

Yeah.....you have to deflect from the 59% of burglaries that turn violent in Britain ........

No I don't, because you are just spouting your usual BS. Of the alleged 59% of burglaries that turn violent, what percentage are initiated by the burglar, and what percentage by the homeowner?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Use a gun in the commission of any crime: Federal, life without parole.
Use a gun in the commission of any crime that causes injury or death of another person: Federal death penalty.

There goes the Dem base.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No I don't, because you are just spouting your usual BS. Of the alleged 59% of burglaries that turn violent, what percentage are initiated by the burglar, and what percentage by the homeowner?

Why would anyone get violent when someone comes in and steals their stuff? Ridiculous!!!

What's your address?

 

[Open Bolt]

1) ALL politicians should be barred from accepting donations from the NRA. At the national, state and local level.

Unconstitutional.

Progressives really do hate our freedom just as much as the 9/11 hijackers hated our freedom.

The reason we cannot get any common sense gun laws put into place is because too many politicians (Democrat and Republican, I hear) are beholden to the NRA.

It never fails that anytime someone supports fascism or opposes civil liberties, they invoke some variation of "common sense".

2) Make it illegal to purchase or own any kind of assault rifle. They are not needed for home protection or hunting. They are only good for killing large numbers of people, really fast.

Unconstitutional. Not only do people have the right to have them, but existing restrictions have proven sufficient to prevent any assault rifle legally owned by civilians from ever being used to commit a crime.

Our children are being killed in their classrooms. We must act now. They can't vote; they don't have a voice. WE MUST BE THEIR VOICE. PLEASE.

If progressives want to engage in virtue signaling to show the world how much they CARE, I suggest that they all burn down their own home. (Note: no insurance fraud. Come clean with the authorities that you are voluntarily burning down your own home.)

Just think of how everyone will realize how much progressives CARE when they see that you are all willing to burn down your own home just to make a statement.

It's what mass shooters usually use to kill people.

That is incorrect. Assault rifles are almost never used in mass shootings.

That is a sorry excuse to have one of those guns. Who are they expecting an invasion from?

Americans don't need an excuse. We do what we want and we don't justify ourselves to anyone.

As for rioting, are they planning to take their guns out a la Kyle Rittenhouse, to "defend" themselves, when all they need to do is stay home?

Mr. Rittenhouse is a hero. And sometimes rioters attack someone's home or place of business.

An AR-15 wouldn't be necessary to protect your home/life.
A regular shotgun would suffice.

You don't get to choose what other people use to defend their homes.

And shotguns are no good against body armor.

The definition has been posted several times in this thread.
Either accept the definition you see hear. Or Google it.

If you have no idea what something is, then you have no business calling for it to be outlawed.

The NRA likes to see more guns in society. Guess what most people use to kill other people? GUNS. Not hammers.

So what? Are people who are killed with guns somehow "more dead" than people who are killed with hammers?

It has a lot to do with the NRA.

That is incorrect. The NRA has nothing to do with the massacres in this country.

They buy up our politicians and control their votes.

Not really. What the NRA does is vote politicians out of office if they cross the NRA.

No matter how many mentally ill folks we have in society, if they didn't have easy access to guns, they couldn't committ mass shootings.

Most mentally ill people are harmless and still have the right to have guns.

People who are a danger to themselves or others are already prohibited from having guns.

Question for the gun enthusiasts: If that had been one of your children or grandchildren killed at Robb Elementary School a few days ago, would you still feel the same way? Would you want to keep the gun laws the same? Would you still want our politicians to be puppets of the NRA?
Be truthful, please.

If I were the victim of a tragedy, I would never use my victimhood as a weapon to try to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

 

[Open Bolt]

I don't agree with what you are saying. Well, not all the way, that is. What we need to do is to return the NRA back into the Non Profit it used to be. It did a lot of good and didn't make many donations to Politicoes. They were too busy teaching gun safety, hunting and fishing and all that. Then it was outright purchased by the Firearms Manufacturers and here we are today. It's now two parts and only one is what is left of the old Non Profit.

The NRA has not been purchased by the gun manufacturers.

They do a lot of good today as well. And their political advocacy for our civil liberties is a big part of that.

The last thing we need is to have the NRA stop enforcing the Constitution and protecting our civil liberties.

I don't think we need to outlaw "Assault Rifles" like the AR and the like.

Semi-auto-only AR-15s are not assault rifles.

What we can do is treat them like we did the M1921 Thompson in 1934. People that are registered or EFA Licensees are NOT the problem. Anymore than the people with the CCW Licenses are with the handguns. Make the AR and the like have to be registered, stored properly and handled properly under the 1934 National Firearms Act. 200 bucks to register yourself and another 200 bucks to register the AR really isn't out of the question.

What would be the justification for placing semi-auto-only AR-15s under the NFA?

Their pistol grips and flash suppressors certainly would not justify such a thing.

Keep in mind that unjustifiable gun laws are unconstitutional violations of our civil liberties.

 

[Open Bolt]

It would appear some people think their 2nd Amendment rights are more important than children’s lives.

Well, they are. Our freedom is always more important.

But note that there is no conflict between the Second Amendment and anyone's life.

 

[Hellbilly]

Well, they are. Our freedom is always more important.

Do you have kids?

 

[boedicca]

 

[Hellbilly]

View attachment 654357

Time for some new talking points, dude.

 

[Open Bolt]

And do you think that modern day Norway, UK, Sweden, Japan are all vicious dictator states?

The UK and Japan are certainly without freedom. I do not know about Sweden and Norway.

They don't have this level of mass shootings so OBVIOUSLY they must be.
I feel sorry for them not having dead kids all the time to help then understand what TRUE FREEDOM looks like.

Freedom has nothing to do with the number of massacres in a country.

I understand that essentially the AR-15 isn't much more than less intimidating looking semi-automatics on the market including some hunting rifles. It's just tricked out to look more "cool" and "military" but not functionally different.
As such I kind of see the point that banning "assault rifles" isn't necessarily going to move the needle since similar firepower can be purchased in less exciting "packaging".
But that means the REAL answer might be a lot less pleasant to consider.
If I were in the NRA I'd DEFINITELY push for an "assault weapons ban" if only so it would distract from the larger problem and not really impact the ability of gun loving Americans from getting a good armory set up.

There are a number of problems with that strategy.

The first is, it is completely unacceptable for any gun to be outlawed for no reason, and that includes the AR-15.

Second, if we did allow it to be outlawed, progressives would just move on to demanding their next ban. So long as we hold the line on the AR-15, progressives never move on to demanding the next ban.

Third, many pushes for stronger background checks have been defeated expressly because progressives undermine them by demanding that their attempts to outlaw the AR-15 take precedence over background checks. So long as we keep fighting for the AR-15, progressives will keep using the issue to undermine their own position.

Fourth, as long as the gun control fight is all about the AR-15, it is an easy win for the NRA. Since there is actually no reason to outlaw them, the NRA finds it easy to convince congressmen to oppose such a ban.

Kind of like how they treat "mental illness". Talk about it so people won't pay attention to the larger issue. Only problem with the "mental healthcare gambit" is that it might mean they would have to pay something extra for their guns to support actual mental healthcare improvement.
But you get the point.

How is mental illness not the larger issue?

Where do black market guns come from? Do they just appear out of thin air?
Or are they stolen from the stashes of good, honest law-abiding gun owners?
This is why I think part of the problem IS the number of guns. Increasing gun ownership rates means, statistically, that you are increasing the PROBABILITY of those guns winding up in the wrong hands. Flood the market with more guns than people and you increase the chances of guns being stolen or diverted to "evil purposes".
Life is in no small way a probability game. We rely on probabilities all over the place. You currently can't purchase more than a couple boxes of Sudafed because they want to limit the PROBABILITY of Sudafed being diverted to meth production.
Why can't we use the same logic with guns? You can have sudafed but only so much and you are regulated. You can have guns but only so many and you are regulated.
Why is this such a horrible thing to consider?

Because people use different guns for different purposes, and there are many different guns for many different purposes.

Yeah, that makes sense. The police who are TRAINED FOR SHOOTING SITUATIONS stayed safe, so I'm sure an armed 3rd grade teacher or a janitor would be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.

Indeed they would be. The answer is for teachers to keep a rifle in a gun safe in their classrooms.

And every time we see a pile of dead kids we KNOW that the NRA will be the FIRST to tell us that this is completely unrelated to guns and if any legislator so much as even THINKS about backing gun legislation they will pull that money from them.

No.

If they even think about backing gun legislation, they will be voted out of office forever.

The NRA is doing their job right. It's just sad that one side-effect is a bunch of dead kids, but hey, if you wanna make an omelet you have to obliterate an egg to the point that it can no longer be visually identified.

That is incorrect. Massacres are not a side effect of our gun rights.

Not that it matters. We'd be keeping our freedom even if massacres actually were a side effect.

That's ANOTHER thing I hate seeing on the news. All those mass killings in schools by hammer wielding nutjobs. I really think we have TOO MANY HAMMERS. And to think that hammers are made SPECIFICALLY TO HARM OR KILL...it's just irresponsible to sell them in the stores.

What does it matter if a weapon is designed to kill?

If someone is killed with a weapon that is designed to kill, does that make the victim "more dead" than people who are killed with a weapon that isn't designed to kill?

And what about guns that are not designed to kill? Self defense guns are designed to protect. Target shooting guns are not designed to be fired at living targets. No living creature was shot during the biathlon in the last Winter Olympics.

But, it's also why there are so few mass hammer killings in other countries. They have a lot more strictures on hammer purchases.

What does it matter what kind of weapon someone is killed with?

Are people who are killed with guns "more dead" than people who are killed with hammers?

Apparently the congresspeople feel differently. Otherwise it wouldn't matter what their "gun score" is given by the NRA.

No. It's not the donations that they care about. It's the "being voted out of office forever" part that they try to avoid.

 

[Open Bolt]

I am a Life Member but I am not proud of it because of the corruption of the upper leadership.
I support GOA now.

GOA is a great group, but don't believe everything bad that you hear about the NRA.

The left is expressly demonizing the NRA in the hopes of preventing the NRA from upholding the Constitution.

 

[Open Bolt]

Well, I'd say that any rifle that isn't single action or bolt action, qualifies.

It doesn't.

Assault rifles:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire

b) accept detachable magazines

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault rifles.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault rifles.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault rifles.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault rifles.

Why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt game?

This "need" nonsense is serf speech. Americans are not serfs. We use whatever kind of gun we want to, and we don't justify ourselves to anyone.

One reason why hunters choose to use a semi-auto action is to tame recoil on powerful rounds.

Are American hunters all such bad shots?

No.

Ah, so you have no faith that your armed forces; Army, National Guard, Navy and Air Force and nuclear weapons are capable of protecting you. If the greatest military force in history can't, what makes you think your assault rifle can?

Sometimes agents of the government are not present to protect us when a criminal is attacking us, and it falls upon us to protect ourselves.

 

[Open Bolt]

The shooters are going for the closest thing they can get their hands on, to a real assault rifle, for obvious reasons.
in Black!
What is an assault rifle?
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
What is an AR-15?
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Since when are semi-auto-only AR-15s designed for infantry use?

And why would it matter even if they were?

I'm a Canadian. That which applies to this discussion would be a difference in the frequency of America's wars. This is speaking directly to the point I'm attempting to make here. Michael Moore has been making the point for years, and did so admirably well with his award winning, Bowling for Columbine.

As I recall, Michael Moore has been caught lying in his documentaries.

Michael Moore's main point is well known but it's being completely ignored, except for the hate that is being expressed toward him for bringing it to light.

I'm not sure what main point you are talking about, so it isn't as well known as you think.

But I would guess that his main point is being ignored because it is an outright lie.

For an idea on something productive in the meantime, until some Americans stop fearing the truth:
The AR-15's and the large capacity magazines facilitate the large number of children killed by a shooter who has that ambition.

They do no such thing. That is not even remotely the truth.

That's a fact!

No it isn't.

I don't know what to do about the problem.

There is no problem.

Why are you avoiding a discussion on Michael Moore's position?

If you mean the falsehood listed above, I'm happy to discuss the fact that it is not true.

 

[Open Bolt]

Both suggestions are sensible, but do American politicians do sensible?

Both suggestions are outrageous violations of our civil liberties.

 

[Briss]

GOA is a great group, but don't believe everything bad that you hear about the NRA.

The left is expressly demonizing the NRA in the hopes of preventing the NRA from upholding the Constitution.

Had NRA members been at Uvalde, they could have given those cops a lesson on how and why to use a firearm.

 

[Open Bolt]

Lying troll

I see no falsehoods in his post.