Homeowner shoots and kills home invader

aociswundumho · Sep 15, 2019

MSgt said:
Some facts, allow you to be deceptive. All the facts, will not:

- The violent crime rate was at a high point in 1933 (it did not plummet as your broad graph implies)

My chart uses a government online source that can be checked by anyone. What's your source?

and this had mostly all to do with the Depression, not simply Prohibition,

Your link agrees with me, not you:

history.com said:
The passage of the 18th Amendment and the introduction of Prohibition in 1920 fueled the rise of organized crime, with gangsters growing rich on profits from bootleg liquor—often aided by corrupt local policemen and politicians.

There's your heros, engaging in public "service".

It is widely understood that New Deal programs were likely a major factor in declining crime rates, as was the end of Prohibition and a slowdown of immigration and migration of people from rural America to northern cities, all of which reduced urban crime rates. Even when the U.S. economy stalled again in 1937-38, homicide rates kept falling, reaching 6.4 per 100,000 by the end of the decade. Do you see how all the facts matter?

What I see is how you copied and pasted from the link, as if they're your words. As far as it being "widely understood that New Deal programs were likely a major factor in declining crime rates", your link simple asserts it without evidence just the way you did. If you check their source at the bottom of the page, you find this:

LA Times said:
On the other hand, as the economic recovery proceeded from 1934 to 1937, the homicide rate declined by 20%. This may or may not have been due to the New Deal,

That's the evidence supporting this dumb assertion regarding the link between the new deal and the crime rate at the time.

In other words, the widespread violent crime rate was due largely to the dire socioeconomic problems of society, not Prohibition.

No, that's your personal delusion. But even if you were right, it's becoming more and more accepted that Milton Friedman was correct - it was the government which turned a typical recession into the Great Depression. Even Ben Bernanke acknowledged it in public when he was on the federal reserve board:

Ben Bernanke said:
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you're right. We did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

Both disasters - the Great Depression and alcohol prohibition - were caused by the same government you claim "creates a sense of security/stability".

Today, the people see the AR and the constant use of assault weapons in the media. Doing nothing, will eventually see something. Do you understand how reasoning works...

I think I do. As I understand it, the argument is:

p. The people see the AR and the constant use of assault weapons in the media.

p. Doing nothing, will eventually see something.

c. More gun control laws are needed.

I have to hand it to you, that is a rock solid argument.

Waddy · Sep 16, 2019

MSgt said:
Which it is not....

First, Katrina involved a total breakdown of society, which is not the same thing as a tyrannical government enslaving you. And even at the time, law enforcement declared that their confiscations involved abandoned weapons in abandoned homes. The myth was exaggerated into a scenario where law enforcement was tossing people aside, en masse, while seizing guns and slapping babies.

I didn't state that we would lose most of our current gun Rights. I said that the longer we insist on doing nothing, the more extreme the result when enough people are fed up.

- After an idiot shoots 400 people at a music concert in Vegas by using a Bump Fire, which allows a person to get around established law,...ban the Bump Fire.

- After enough mentally-ill people shoot up preschools and theaters,...direct focus on the mentally-ill's ability to purchase or handle firearms.

- After a kid shoots his sister or brother by accident,...focus more on the "responsible" gun owner's lack of security.

But do you know who stands in the way of this reasoning and common sense?...the NRA and their legion of Conservative donors who would rather pretend that they are in their own private little war against "the Left" who want their guns while the NRA receives donor money from gun manufacturers to purchase politicians.

Yes, Katrina was a breakdown of civil society. And when that happens on any scale government tends to become tyrannical, claiming it's in the best interests of the people. And I watched a news clip of law enforcement taking a handgun from an 80 year old woman, so that cleaned up version of taking only abandoned guns is a whitewash of what actually took place. I'm not afraid of our government during times of normalcy, not much anyways, but if there ever is a complete breakdown of society, any and every government becomes tyrannical.

And yes, there are some on the left that wish to take all guns in private hands. That has been well documented. It is not the entire left, but is is some on the left. That has also been well documented.

You insist we must give up some more of our gun rights or we won't like what happens next. We have given up more and more gun rights over the decades, as you documented. How much more do you want? Just a few more "sensible" gun laws? We've heard that before. Or should we enforce the 26.000 gun laws already on the books?

The NRA isn't the problem. They compromised for decades, but finally realized there was no end to the restrictions and limitations anti-gun lobbyists wanted to enact on honest citizens. Every legislative term new proposals, didn't matter if they would really make a difference. The Second Amendment has been under siege for generations now. If not for the NRA we would have no gun rights left.

But do nothing? The NRA supports putting mental health records on the Instant Check list. You know who opposes that. The mental health industry; they believe, probably rightly so, that putting even their most dangerous patients on a government list is like "outing" them. They feel it would discourage other mentally ill people from seeking treatment. Even now, HIPPA laws prohibit a therapist, without the patient's permission, from warning even family member that their patient may be a danger to them and others. How do you stand; protect the privacy of individuals no matter what, or protect society from the dangerously mentally ill?

The NRA also supports banning plea bargains on gun charges. Gun charge plea bargains are one of the most common types of plea bargains. Plead guilty to burglary and serve a couple of years instead of ten years on the gun charge. Save prosecutors time and money, and gives them one more in the win column. But does society win?

lastly, if the AR15 were banned, there are many, many ways to acquire just as much firepower; many guns can be made to fire high capacity magazines. And if guns were not readily available, as in some foreign countries, you see bombings, poison gas, and even suicide truck attacks. Tim McVay did a lot of damage in Oklahoma City with a fertilizer bomb. So did those two nut jobs in Boston. Years ago, bombing WAS the preferred method. That and church burnings. Determined crazy people will find a way. Believing a ban on one particular rifle will make a difference is wishful thinking.

What we need to deal with is a stressful modern society that is breeding violence prone entitled psychopaths who feel if they aren't successful, if they aren't happy, that the direction of the nation is not going their way they are entitled to take it out on everybody. That's what you need to address. THAT'S the problem. It's not one particular firearm.

joko104 · Sep 16, 2019

Waddy said:
Yes, Katrina was a breakdown of civil society. And when that happens on any scale government tends to become tyrannical, claiming it's in the best interests of the people. And I watched a news clip of law enforcement taking a handgun from an 80 year old woman, so that cleaned up version of taking only abandoned guns is a whitewash of what actually took place. I'm not afraid of our government during times of normalcy, not much anyways, but if there ever is a complete breakdown of society, any and every government becomes tyrannical.

And yes, there are some on the left that wish to take all guns in private hands. That has been well documented. It is not the entire left, but is is some on the left. That has also been well documented.

You insist we must give up some more of our gun rights or we won't like what happens next. We have given up more and more gun rights over the decades, as you documented. How much more do you want? Just a few more "sensible" gun laws? We've heard that before. Or should we enforce the 26.000 gun laws already on the books?

The NRA isn't the problem. They compromised for decades, but finally realized there was no end to the restrictions and limitations anti-gun lobbyists wanted to enact on honest citizens. Every legislative term new proposals, didn't matter if they would really make a difference. The Second Amendment has been under siege for generations now. If not for the NRA we would have no gun rights left.

But do nothing? The NRA supports putting mental health records on the Instant Check list. You know who opposes that. The mental health industry; they believe, probably rightly so, that putting even their most dangerous patients on a government list is like "outing" them. They feel it would discourage other mentally ill people from seeking treatment. Even now, HIPPA laws prohibit a therapist, without the patient's permission, from warning even family member that their patient may be a danger to them and others. How do you stand; protect the privacy of individuals no matter what, or protect society from the dangerously mentally ill?

The NRA also supports banning plea bargains on gun charges. Gun charge plea bargains are one of the most common types of plea bargains. Plead guilty to burglary and serve a couple of years instead of ten years on the gun charge. Save prosecutors time and money, and gives them one more in the win column. But does society win?

lastly, if the AR15 were banned, there are many, many ways to acquire just as much firepower; many guns can be made to fire high capacity magazines. And if guns were not readily available, as in some foreign countries, you see bombings, poison gas, and even suicide truck attacks. Tim McVay did a lot of damage in Oklahoma City with a fertilizer bomb. So did those two nut jobs in Boston. Years ago, bombing WAS the preferred method. That and church burnings. Determined crazy people will find a way. Believing a ban on one particular rifle will make a difference is wishful thinking.

What we need to deal with is a stressful modern society that is breeding violence prone entitled psychopaths who feel if they aren't successful, if they aren't happy, that the direction of the nation is not going their way they are entitled to take it out on everybody. That's what you need to address. THAT'S the problem. It's not one particular firearm.

That is exceptionally well written. :applaud

Indie guy · Sep 16, 2019

Stealers Wheel said:
It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?

Hell to the yes!

When someone breaks into your home, invades your privacy, steals your possessions, and even threatens your life, you have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property.

Bum · Sep 16, 2019

Stealers Wheel said:
It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?

I think its more accurate to say the failed judicial system isnt punishing criminals, and plays catch and release....turning them loose back into society which unfortunately forces people to defend themselves.

I hold the criminals responsible for thier actions and whatever ill befalls them in the course of committing a crime; I hold the Judicial system responsible for allowing criminals the opportunity to continue to prey on thier fellow citizens.

I hold legislators responsible for making it harder to exercise the 2A for law abiding citizens while making it easy for repeat offenders to get back victimizing society.

Judge Releases Repeat Gun Offender On Orders To Write Report On Gun Violence - Blue Lives Matter

Repeat offender faces federal drug, gun charges

CWB Chicago: Repeat gun offender charged with January shooting in Old Town

Deadly shooting underscores problem of released repeat offenders | WTOP

Repeat Offender Released From Prison After Serving Just 5 Years Of 10 Year Sentence, Shot And Killed By Homeowner After Trying To Break In – Concealed Nation

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/08/07/repeat-gun-offenders/

MSgt · Sep 16, 2019

Waddy said:
... that cleaned up version of taking only abandoned guns is a whitewash of what actually took place. I'm not afraid of our government during times of normalcy, not much anyways, but if there ever is a complete breakdown of society, any and every government becomes tyrannical.

I stated that the confiscations involved abandoned weaponry and that it wasn't just an exercise of tyranny. And it was the chief of police that ordered the confiscations, not government. You have allowed the myths to carry far more weight than they are due. Government didn't go tyrannical. If anything, a single police chief did. It was government that fixed it.

Waddy said:
And yes, there are some on the left that wish to take all guns in private hands. That has been well documented.

In the aftermath, the proposed (and modified) Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 was passed in 2017 in the United States Senate, 84 to 16. You think the Senate only had 16 Democrats? So, the fact that "some" exist means about as much as the fact that the Right has "some" neo-Nazis. But "some" is growing isn't it?

Waddy said:
You insist we must give up some more of our gun rights or we won't like what happens next. Or should we enforce the 26.000 gun laws already on the books?

I insist that we pull our heads out of our assess. For example: do you mean the gun laws that won't allow you to easily own machine guns, yet can be circumvented by getting a Bump Fire? The argument that we have enough laws and that we only need to enforce them proves false when we look for ways to legalize loop holes. Clearly, the laws we do have aren't good enough and they do not keep up with invention.

Waddy said:
The NRA isn't the problem.

Trump declares the GOP afraid of the NRA and the NRA declares that Wal-Mart's recent decisions would be bad for business, and you are still choosing to believe contrary to evidence? The NRA receives "donations" from gun manufacturers. The NRA donates money to Republican campaigns. And with the NRA insisting that an 18-year old should be allowed to purchase guns, but has little to nothing to say about his right to carry from state to state, they are clearly a business. It is the NRA that lobbies to preserve your so-called "Right" to a Bump Fire; and it is the NRA's irresponsible political behaviors that is the actual threat.

Waddy said:
The NRA supports putting mental health records on the Instant Check list.

So, the NRA safely "supports" opening the door to doctor/patient privilege, which they know is never going to happen, but can't find it in their hearts to support a ban on purchasing Bump Fires, which would be in keeping with established law? We are right back to that word "purchase," aren't we?

Waddy said:
The NRA also supports banning plea bargains on gun charges.

Again, being hard on crime is safe, but does nothing in regards to being politically responsible.

Waddy said:
Believing a ban on one particular rifle will make a difference is wishful thinking.

Yet, a continual insistence that we do nothing, will eventually make wishful thinking a reality. Years ago, O'Rourke wouldn't have even stated this. Years ago, companies were not signing petitions en mass to the U.S. President. Years ago, Wal-Mart was just fine providing for the consumer. Do you see this point yet?

Waddy said:
What we need to deal with is a stressful modern society that is breeding violence prone entitled psychopaths..... That's what you need to address. THAT'S the problem. It's not one particular firearm.

Why would I need to address that? I'm the loudest voice on this site for declaring exactly what you just stated. But I call it the creation of a healthy gun culture to replace the unhealthy gun culture we currently maintain. No safes...underage shooters on ranges...nut case sons given access to inventory...lack of law enforcement focusing on obvious warnings...gun nuts decorating their truck windows with immature stickers of their toys to represent family members...violent video games as babysitters while mommy and daddy rage through irrational political extremism... The gun culture within the military is far superior to that which is found in the civilian sector because there lacks a certain respect for what is essentially a deadly weapon, of which its sole purpose for existing is to kill. It is not just a gun to trick out with cool gadgets. In the meantime, lets line up the psychopaths and hand out Bump Fires so they can circumvent the law.

Waddy · Sep 16, 2019

MSgt said:
I stated that the confiscations [U]involved[/U] abandoned weaponry and that it wasn't just an exercise of tyranny. And it was the chief of police that ordered the confiscations, not government. You have allowed the myths to carry far more weight than they are due. Government didn't go tyrannical. If anything, a single police chief did. It was government that fixed it.

Backtracking now. Nice to see you admit there were actual confiscations of guns from honest citizens. And last time I checked a chief of police is definitely part of government; a big part since he is pretty much in charge.

In the aftermath, the proposed (and modified) Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 was passed in 2017 in the United States Senate, 84 to 16. You think the Senate only had 16 Democrats? So, the fact that "some" exist means about as much as the fact that the Right has "some" neo-Nazis. But "some" is growing isn't it?

SO the confiscation problem was serious enough for Congress to enact a law with a serious majority from both sides. This is no guarantee that it won't happen again. Basically, it says you can ask for your gun back later in court if it is confiscated.

I insist that we pull our heads out of our assess. For example: do you mean the gun laws that won't allow you to easily own machine guns, yet can be circumvented by getting a Bump Fire? The argument that we have enough laws and that we only need to enforce them proves false when we look for ways to legalize loop holes. Clearly, the laws we do have aren't good enough and they do not keep up with invention.

Banning one item of technology will not reduce gun violence. There will always be another way of making a gun fire faster, quieter, and with more power. Today we even have 3D printed "ghost guns". Laws will never keep up with technology. Better focus on keeping them out of the hands of nut jobs.

Trump declares the GOP afraid of the NRA and the NRA declares that Wal-Mart's recent decisions would be bad for business, and you are still choosing to believe contrary to evidence? The NRA receives "donations" from gun manufacturers. The NRA donates money to Republican campaigns. And with the NRA insisting that an 18-year old should be allowed to purchase guns, but has little to nothing to say about his right to carry from state to state, they are clearly a business. It is the NRA that lobbies to preserve your so-called "Right" to a Bump Fire; and it is the NRA's irresponsible political behaviors that is the actual threat.

The NRA also receives donations from most all of it's 5,000,000,000 members. I personally send in a nice fat check every election cycle. If it weren't for the NRA we would have no functioning Second Amendment. And if we consider 18 year olds adults in EVERY other way, why shouldn't they be allowed to buy a gun as well?

So, the NRA safely "supports" opening the door to doctor/patient privilege, which they know is never going to happen, but can't find it in their hearts to support a ban on purchasing Bump Fires

The NRA supports opening that doctor/patient door because it knows preventing crazy, dangerous people from owning guns might actually be a good idea that works.

Again, being hard on crime is safe, but does nothing in regards to being politically responsible.

It just keeps the most violent, dangerous criminals off the streets longer. That makes sense to me. Apparently not to you.

Yet, a continual insistence that we do nothing, will eventually make wishful thinking a reality.

The NRA, and gun owners, are not insisting we do nothing. I listed several things the NRA, and most gun owners, support. We just don't want to do the things you want us to do, because it won't help and we don't want to give up any more of our rights on things that are ineffective.

Why would I need to address that? I'm the loudest voice on this site for declaring exactly what you just stated. But I call it the creation of a healthy gun culture to replace the unhealthy gun culture we currently maintain. No safes...underage shooters on ranges...nut case sons given access to inventory...lack of law enforcement focusing on obvious warnings...gun nuts decorating their truck windows with immature stickers of their toys to represent family members...violent video games as babysitters while mommy and daddy rage through irrational political extremism... It is not just a gun to trick out with cool gadgets. In the meantime, lets line up the psychopaths and hand out Bump Fires so they can circumvent the law.

So now you want to ban bumper stickers and baby sitters. This last paragraph shows us what you really think. Deeeeeplorable, ain't it !!!!

Homeowner shoots and kills home invader

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig

Waddy

joko104

Indie guy

Well-known member

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.

MSgt

Read Some Books

Waddy