[The Godfather]

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5289996/detail.html#
Audio from 911 call
http://mjmorningshow.com/cc-common/f...ticle_id=55026
Guns in house: good.
Guns in stadium/airplane: bad.

[Dark Helmet]

A Gaylord from Texas. Big surprise.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

A Gaylord from Texas. Big surprise.

What does that even mean?

[ghporter]

The lady was right-he COULD have done something horrible, and her shooting him in the leg may be the only reason he didn't.

I believe the statistics here in Texas back up the claim that an armed citizenry is a good crime deterrent. If you know that there's a good chance someone in a house you want to burgle or rob has a gun, are you going to take the chance at it? A lot of criminals have said no.

I still don't understand Dark Helmet's reference to the woman's name.

[OldManMac]

She was lucky she hit him.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by KarlG

She was lucky she hit him.

At confrontation range (finding someone in your closet has to be less than four feet!) it would have been a miracle if she missed. And in order to get a concealed carry permit in Texas (I believe that's what the article meant by saying she has a license for the weapon) you have to demonstrate proficiency with it at ranges up to something like 10 yards.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I still don't understand Dark Helmet's reference to the woman's name.

That makes two of us.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter

At confrontation range (finding someone in your closet has to be less than four feet!) it would have been a miracle if she missed. And in order to get a concealed carry permit in Texas (I believe that's what the article meant by saying she has a license for the weapon) you have to demonstrate proficiency with it at ranges up to something like 10 yards.

I'm aware of that. What I was referring to is a person's elevated levels of stress in such a situation, which can cause panic. Also, with a weapon in the home, you're more likely to get shot as a family member. Most people are murdered by someone they know.

BTW, I am not anti-gun. I've owned a rifle, and a shotgun, and, although I currently have no weapons (except for a BB gun in my sister's basement), I have occasionally thought about purchasing a pistol, purely for target shooting.

[Spliffdaddy]

With a car in the home, you're more likely to die in a car wreck.

With food in the home, you're more likely to choke on food.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I still don't understand Dark Helmet's reference to the woman's name.

Uh lets see, her name is Gaylord and she is from Texas. Ya my comment is a real mystery

[freudling]

Americans and their guns.

They cause more stress than need be. She should have said, OK, you can take what you want and leave. It is a risk, but the perp would have been less fearful and thus more logical. What would any of us do if a gun was pointed at us? Most on here I am sure would try to talk the person down. But guns are just bad news all around. After you severly hurt or kill someone because they broke into your house, you get to deal with post-traumatic stress that could hit you the rest of your life. Too many problems associated with gun use for them to be used.

But I am sure Americans will get on here and argue for gun ownership. 12000 murders a year? Canada, about 400. Guns much less in circulation, much less advocated and much harder to obtain up here. Not making hard and fast generalizations.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Uh lets see, her name is Gaylord and she is from Texas. Ya my comment is a real mystery

Oh, now it makes sense. I just had to factor in your IQ, and it all became clear...

-t

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Oh, now it makes sense. I just had to factor in your IQ, and it all became clear...

-t

There ya go. What's the equation again?

[Mister Elf]

Originally Posted by freudling

Americans and their guns.

They cause more stress than need be. She should have said, OK, you can take what you want and leave. It is a risk, but the perp would have been less fearful and thus more logical.

Or, he would have taken what he wanted and left, leaving a traumatized old granny that may or may not have been able to identify him.

Originally Posted by freudling

What would any of us do if a gun was pointed at us? Most on here I am sure would try to talk the person down.

No, I'd probably go for the weapon...

Originally Posted by freudling

After you severly hurt or kill someone because they broke into your house, you get to deal with post-traumatic stress that could hit you the rest of your life.

Which, I'm sure, is better than having a 9mm hole in you and having to deal with the PTSD, as well as the other obvious medical issues resulting from that.

Originally Posted by freudling

But I am sure Americans will get on here and argue for gun ownership.

You're darn right we will...and that argument is supported by the article. Who knows what the maniac would have done if she hadn't found him?

[CMYKid]

Originally Posted by freudling

She should have said, OK, you can take what you want and leave.

But I am sure Americans will get on here and argue for gun ownership. 12000 murders a year? Canada, about 400. Guns much less in circulation...and much harder to obtain up here.

And what if "what he wanted" involved her or the GRANDDAUGHTER that was in the house? Thatsa real brilliant idea.

Equally brilliant, your USA/Canada statistics...aside from not making any distinction between gun-related murdrs and other sorts, the US cas 237 million people compared to canadas roughly 30 million. So yeah, they have fewer murders. They also have fewer lots of things, but it has nothing to do with access to guns.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by freudling

Americans and their guns.

They cause more stress than need be. She should have said, OK, you can take what you want and leave. It is a risk, but the perp would have been less fearful and thus more logical. What would any of us do if a gun was pointed at us? Most on here I am sure would try to talk the person down. But guns are just bad news all around. After you severly hurt or kill someone because they broke into your house, you get to deal with post-traumatic stress that could hit you the rest of your life. Too many problems associated with gun use for them to be used.

But I am sure Americans will get on here and argue for gun ownership. 12000 murders a year? Canada, about 400. Guns much less in circulation, much less advocated and much harder to obtain up here. Not making hard and fast generalizations.

Ok, I'll bite. I've never owned a gun and don't plan to, but I'm starting to understand this Second Amendment thing, I think, and why we're so "gun-happy" over here. She could have said "Take what you want and leave", but what if he wanted her (adult) granddaughter, who she said was in the house? What if he decided to beat her up before leaving? And what happens next week, when he needs more money? Does he hit up the same house, since they were so nice to him the first time? The right to bear arms in this country is all about the right to defend yourself and your property without necessarily relying on the government or the police.

Every gun owner I know -- every single one -- understands that the right to use that firearm comes with a whole boatload of responsibilities. Every time they even think of using it, they need to be sure that the threat justifies it. And they understand that just taking out the gun instantly increases the overall threat level, and they need to be able to handle it effectively to truly defend themselves. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to determine whether or not he is willing to take these responsibilities on. In a way, the right to bear arms is the basic individual right to defend oneself in the face of an immediate threat. If the government or police are around to help you, then so be it, but that right of self-defense still primarily belongs to the individual.

[Mister Elf]

Oh, and by the way, I do support gun ownership if your IQ is less than 2 and couldn't tell.

= my best friend the day I turn 18 (or shortly thereafter)...

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by ghporter

At confrontation range (finding someone in your closet has to be less than four feet!) it would have been a miracle if she missed. And in order to get a concealed carry permit in Texas (I believe that's what the article meant by saying she has a license for the weapon) you have to demonstrate proficiency with it at ranges up to something like 10 yards.

I'm surprised she hit him in the leg, since most people would be aiming for center-of-mass. Of course, if he was lunging for her, she was probably moving/jumping backward while pulling the trigger.

I'm still not sure whether a pistol or a short-barrel shotgun is best for home-defense. If she had been holding a 12-gauge instead of a .38, he probably wouldn't have been able to run away after being hit Of course the flip-side is that a long-gun is a lot easier to grab from someone than a pistol.

[ghporter]

Mister Elf, you'll have to wait until you're 21 for Mr. Beretta.

jcadam, it's quite possible that she was raising the pistol and squeezed the trigger prematurely-lucky for the perp she did, too.

I personally feel that a pump-action 12 gauge has the capability to instill fear in someone who isn't supposed to be there simply by the sound of working the pump. It's quite distinctive. On the other hand, any practical shotgun would be unwieldy indoors in the situation above. As for being grabable, with either a pistol or shotgun, the counter to someone grabbing the weapon is to fire it. It tends to ruin the other person's day pretty thoroughly.

[Mister Elf]

I'm applying to the US Naval Academy...there'll be plenty of M9s around, though not mine...and I certainly won't be carrying anything, concealed or not, off post till I graduate.

[Paco500]

As the saying goes:

"If the outlaw guns, only outlaws will accidently shoot and kill their kids."

go canada.

[Kevin]

That isn't how the saying goes. And do you not think outlaws in Canada carry guns?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Mister Elf

I'm applying to the US Naval Academy...there'll be plenty of M9s around, though not mine...and I certainly won't be carrying anything, concealed or not, off post till I graduate.

Don't be surprised when you find out that Anapolis is pretty stingy about time on the range. At first you'll probably only get a "familiarization" course and not much actual firing time. And you probably won't get any real firearms training until you're a senior (if then). And contrary to what a lot of people think, being in the military does not typically entail handling firearms for any significant part of the duty day for the majority of GIs. I spent over 23 years in the Air Force in a job that ostensibly should have involved being issued a weapon any time I was overseas, and I never even got trained on how to use the M16 in any mode but semiautomatic. As a leader, that would have seriously compromised my capabilities if I'd had to lead people anywhere near combat.

Note about U.S. military officers: if their job does not entail actual combat, i.e. infantry operations, they will probably be (to put it technically) piss poor with their assigned weapon. If you get to the point of actually receiving a commision, do not let this happen to you. The people you lead will need significant skills with their assigned weapons, and having a commander that you expect to shoot himself in the foot is the worst thing you can have in terms of morale and motivation.

Thread diversion complete. Go about your lives, citizens.

[Mister Elf]

Err...that's the Air Force. I'm hoping that the naval infantry is created by then...which would give me an opportunity for a combat MOS. Also, I've already expert-qualed with the M16 (A2 and A4 models), as well as the M9...fortunately, my foot is still firmly in place.

[jcadam]

I'm an Army Officer, ghporter speaks the truth. I fire a weapon, with reall ball ammunition (as opposed to blanks for training), that is, only a few times a year on the qualification range. Semi-automatic only

[Mastrap]

Back on topic: I wonder how all these countries with strict gun control manage to keep their crime figures down...

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Back on topic: I wonder how all these countries with strict gun control manage to keep their crime figures down...

Nothing to do with gun control, we just have more assholes in America.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Nothing to do with gun control, we just have more assholes in America.

Heh. I didn't think about that option.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Back on topic: I wonder how all these countries with strict gun control manage to keep their crime figures down...

Crime figures?

You mean like Australia ? Crime has went UP since they did it.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Crime figures?

You mean like Australia ? Crime has went UP since they did it.

No, I mean like the UK, Germany, Sweden. You know, countries with strict gun control that don't slide into anarchy.

[Kevin]

Depends were you read..

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation."

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies."

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:

Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse,"

[Mastrap]

Interesting stuff. I agree with the UK comment btw. Only after I left London I realized how alert I was all of the time. You get used to it, but it's no fun.

[hayesk]

From all these statistics, one can conclude a couple of things:

- US has a lot of gun crime
- per capita, other countries that have since implemented gun control to control gun crime have high gun crime too (in many cases higher than the US).

All that means is once a society becomes dependent on guns, it's hard to take that dependence away. Gun control won't do it. A society has to be slowly weened off guns.

If you look at a country that never had a gun dependence - e.g. Canada with approximately 1/9th the population of the US - you'll see the gun crime in Canada is far less than 1/9th that of the US.

From this, one can conclude that a society that has never had a gun complex is safer than one that did.

In other words, taking away guns won't help - you have to teach people not to want guns in the first place. It's a slow process, but in the end it means less gun manufacturing, and thus less guns available for criminals to steal.