Homeowner shoots and kills home invader

[SLC]

You might have indeed, or you might not have. You might have "almost shot him" until he opened his mouth and you realized he was a special needs kid. There is no way to predict.



I'm going to venture a guess that a cop's kid knows there's a risk they might get shot.
The one thing I made very clear to BOTH my kids is, there is NOTHING you can do that is so terrible that you cannot come in the normal front door like a dignified human being. If you feel the need to do otherwise I would much rather we sit and talk it out. Both of them have always known this, and it has come in handy.

They also know that suspicious noises, like windows being forced open in the middle of the night, or doors being beaten on, or glass breaking, are signs to be prepared.

I just know the handicapped guy (early twenties) gave me a good scare. I had a talk with his mom and explained how dangerous it was. I never had a problem with him again.

)

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I just know the handicapped guy (early twenties) gave me a good scare. I had a talk with his mom and explained how dangerous it was. I never had a problem with him again.

)

Oh believe me, I'd a had a brown racing stripe in my shorts, too.

 

[Waddy]

I kinda doubt it.
Even in California, I STILL kinda doubt the homeowner would face charges.
The evidence is probably too clear cut to infer anything other than a homeowner shooting in self defense, and as tough as our gun laws are out here, the Castle Doctrine is pretty strong.
Furthermore, there are judicial rulings which sets a precedent in cases where a homeowner or business owner shoots in self defense, where judges instruct juries to find just cause in those cases.

I personally witnessed a lot of cases like this when I was a news cameraman in the 1980's/90's and I've seen enough news stories in recent years, and in cases like this, the outcome is almost always that the judicial system works more often than not to protect the home or business owner from harm in light of the facts in the case, i.e. an armed criminal threatening the life and safety of the home or business owner.

California is unreasonable where concealed carry is concerned, but when it boils down to protecting your home or business on premises, it is doubtful you will be charged with a crime for shooting an armed criminal in self defense.
It has not happened often enough for me to remember any such story in the news. And believe me, as a California gun owner, I definitely would take notice of such a story if it happened.
I'd have to say that such a thing is pretty rare, even in California, to say nothing of North Carolina.

I do recall a case recently where an elderly New York state resident shot and killed an armed intruder, and while the shooting was ruled self defense the old guy was charged with a felony; not doing the transfer paperwork when his father gave him the gun 35 years ago. They hauled him to jail.

 

[Atomic Kid]

You might have indeed, or you might not have. You might have "almost shot him" until he opened his mouth and you realized he was a special needs kid. There is no way to predict.



I'm going to venture a guess that a cop's kid knows there's a risk they might get shot.
The one thing I made very clear to BOTH my kids is, there is NOTHING you can do that is so terrible that you cannot come in the normal front door like a dignified human being. If you feel the need to do otherwise I would much rather we sit and talk it out. Both of them have always known this, and it has come in handy.

They also know that suspicious noises, like windows being forced open in the middle of the night, or doors being beaten on, or glass breaking, are signs to be prepared.

You might have indeed, or you might not have. You might have "almost shot him" until he opened his mouth and you realized he was a special needs kid. There is no way to predict.



I'm going to venture a guess that a cop's kid knows there's a risk they might get shot.
The one thing I made very clear to BOTH my kids is, there is NOTHING you can do that is so terrible that you cannot come in the normal front door like a dignified human being. If you feel the need to do otherwise I would much rather we sit and talk it out. Both of them have always known this, and it has come in handy.

They also know that suspicious noises, like windows being forced open in the middle of the night, or doors being beaten on, or glass breaking, are signs to be prepared.

I'm going to venture that Kids are going to be kids no matter who or what their parents. Kids sneaking out to go to their friends and sneaking back in is probably as old as time itself. And if you are a cop you most likely know that this is what often happens and has led to tragedy before. That's why in any home defense scenario it's vital that you make some attempt at identifying or warning the target before just blindly blasting away. And the fact remains that statistically it would be extremely rare that you would ever have to use it in a dire situation.

it is statistically by far more likely that you, or another member of your family, will fall victim to it before any intruder ever will. That is the kind of thing you have to take into account when bringing a gun into your house. Because the statistical likelihood is that these kind of tragic events are far more likely to happen if there are firearms already present in your home.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yeah, I get it. Dead men tell no tales. :roll:

But seriously, in this case, I watched the news story and don't know a thing about the homeowner or the suspects, but the house doesn't APPEAR to be a natural target for an armed home invasion. So I'd think "alleged" is pretty wise here. What did they think they'd find worth the risk of getting shot and that justified masks when the guy was home, and not at 10am when they're all gone....

Heh heh, you would be surprised at what a couple of North Carolina meth fiends would be willing to do.
I expect it's the same with South Carolina, too.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I do recall a case recently where an elderly New York state resident shot and killed an armed intruder, and while the shooting was ruled self defense the old guy was charged with a felony; not doing the transfer paperwork when his father gave him the gun 35 years ago. They hauled him to jail.

It's safe to say NY's gun laws, particularly NYC, are more strict than California's.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

No, what he said was this

because violent criminals are not sufficiently punished, lawful people need firearms to defend themselves from those mopes

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not the poster you responded to, but I see nothing wrong when a victim metes out the appropriate punishment, as was the case here. The victim did society a favor by killing one of the thugs.

I disagree with this. You shoot to stop someone from engaging in behavior that a reasonable person would fear as having a high likelihood of causing the defender or another lawful person, severe bodily harm or death.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is accurate. They have to say it as "allegedly" until found guilty in a court of law so as to not incur a liability for their organization for prejudging a criminal case. If they wrote it as guilty the way you want them to and the guy is somehow found not guilty, he can then turn around and sue the paper for saying he was guilty before the trial.

This is true but perhaps they should have said, "the alleged home invaders". Burglary is generally entry into an unoccupied area with the intent to steal while avoiding contact with the owners.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm going to venture that Kids are going to be kids no matter who or what their parents. Kids sneaking out to go to their friends and sneaking back in is probably as old as time itself. And if you are a cop you most likely know that this is what often happens and has led to tragedy before. That's why in any home defense scenario it's vital that you make some attempt at identifying or warning the target before just blindly blasting away. And the fact remains that statistically it would be extremely rare that you would ever have to use it in a dire situation.

it is statistically by far more likely that you, or another member of your family, will fall victim to it before any intruder ever will. That is the kind of thing you have to take into account when bringing a gun into your house. Because the statistical likelihood is that these kind of tragic events are far more likely to happen if there are firearms already present in your home.

---I think I might have already had this conversation with exoplanet.
Hang on a sec.............................
(checking)

Yeah, I did have this conversation already.:coffeepap

This is a used conversation. :lol:

 

[TurtleDude]

It's safe to say NY's gun laws, particularly NYC, are more strict than California's.

NOt really., those two states seem to be trying to out do each other in idiotic anti gun laws. At one time, upstate NY featured rather easy CCW permits.

 

[Waddy]

It's safe to say NY's gun laws, particularly NYC, are more strict than California's.

California is doing it's best to catch up.

 

[MSgt]

Absolutely.

Hey kids, here are the commonly known uses for firearms. :rock :shoot
First, here are the common legit uses:

1. Self defense, saving your own life or the lives of your loved ones.

2. For hire, private security

3. Hunting

4. Target shooting (professional or amateur sporting events)

5. Showing off at gun shows, buying, collecting, selling

6. Just sitting around plinking at stuff in the yard for giggles, if you live someplace where that is feasible

---There ARE other legitimate uses but they are not common. One of them has not come up since the birth of our country.

Ummmm, I think we all already know most or all of the illegitimate uses, so I feel I can skip them

One illegitimate use is to "solve any kind of problem NOT HAPPENING IN REAL TIME", or any kind of problem that starts with words, other than the words "You're a dead man" or equivalent.
Anything else that starts with words must never end in gunfire.

Point is, not everyone understands the list as well as we think they do.

Good summation.

I have always found that odd about the gun nuts. For some reason they feel that they have to legitimize their hobby through the melodramatic idea that they must protect their liberty against the tyranny of government. Of course, then there's the idiot militias who prove to have no problem shooting at law enforcement, even as they declare that they blindly support law enforcement. It's from this delusion that they cling so tightly to the Second Amendment as if the gun-owning "Left" is raging outside their doors with torches and pitchforks to steal their guns. They have defined their sense of liberty through a simple object, which cheapens the very idea of liberty. It's the same sort of thing that would have people argue about tomato paste.
It's a broken ideology that makes them irrationally stubborn.

They want to keep insisting that government do little to nothing about this era's development? Fine. But as more and more corporations sign petitions to the President and as this generation of school shooting survivors grow to be tomorrow's leaders, all they are doing is paving the way for those who will simply get fed up and do something extreme at the government level. I've been telling them this for over a year; and despite watching this develop before their very eyes, their replies are generally "nu-uh."

 

[Waddy]

Good summation.

I have always found that odd about the gun nuts. For some reason they feel that they have to legitimize their hobby through the melodramatic idea that they must protect their liberty against the tyranny of government. Of course, then there's the idiot militias who prove to have no problem shooting at law enforcement, even as they declare that they blindly support law enforcement. It's from this delusion that they cling so tightly to the Second Amendment as if the gun-owning "Left" is raging outside their doors with torches and pitchforks to steal their guns. They have defined their sense of liberty through a simple object, which cheapens the very idea of liberty. It's the same sort of thing that would have people argue about tomato paste.
It's a broken ideology that makes them irrationally stubborn.

They want to keep insisting that government do little to nothing about this era's development? Fine. But as more and more corporations sign petitions to the President and as this generation of school shooting survivors grow to be tomorrow's leaders, all they are doing is paving the way for those who will simply get fed up and do something extreme at the government level. I've been telling them this for over a year; and despite watching this develop before their very eyes, their replies are generally "nu-uh."

It's not a melodramatic idea if it's true. In the aftermath of Katrina law enforcement canvassed neighborhoods searching homes and confiscating all the guns held by lawful owners. At a time when they should have been delegating scarce law enforcement resources to stopping the roving gangs, looters, rapists, and the rest of the criminal element taking advantage of the situation. And while many on the left have no interest in draconian gun laws, there is a sizeable movement that would do just that; take away most guns from honest citizens. So there is some truth to the accusation that the left wants to disarm America. Some on the left would do just that.

But I do think you're correct that eventually we will lose most of our current gun rights. One piece at a time, but eventually enough to greatly reduce or eliminate that right. But it isn't because gun rights proponents oppose legislation. They've already compromised away much of their gun rights over the past several decades. It is because our society is breeding mentally unstable entitled psychopaths prone to violence that will make gun ownership untenable for the rest of us.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

California is doing it's best to catch up.

Yes except Cali has had a Dem supermajority for a long time now.
And while that isn't always a bad thing, it can certainly develop into one.
There's a reason why voters did this, but perhaps Cali conservatives can figure out how to rebuild their competency and ethics. We need conservatives to keep us liberals honest, and vice versa...and when there is no "loyal opposition", that's when the party in power gets weird.

So I predict a cyclical swing of the pendulum a little bit back toward the center in Cali and among the things I expect will change will be a more proactive and bipartisan approach to the homeless issue, and I expect to see some movement on things like concealed carry, although I don't expect much in the way of bipartisanship on CC issues.
Still, I won't be surprised if Cali eventually becomes "shall issue" instead of "may issue", and that is because the MAY ISSUE has in reality turned into WILL NEVER ISSUE.

Like any other state, there are plenty of ethical and responsible law abiding citizens who should not be denied a concealed carry permit in Cali.

I think a lot of it depends on what is going to happen next year. If Trump is reelected, expect to see Cali remain exclusively in Dem hands for a while. If he loses, things might relax a bit. Sorry but I feel that Trump has damaged conservatives more than they realize, especially here in "The Golden State".

 

[Waddy]

Yes except Cali has had a Dem supermajority for a long time now.
And while that isn't always a bad thing, it can certainly develop into one.
There's a reason why voters did this, but perhaps Cali conservatives can figure out how to rebuild their competency and ethics. We need conservatives to keep us liberals honest, and vice versa...and when there is no "loyal opposition", that's when the party in power gets weird.

So I predict a cyclical swing of the pendulum a little bit back toward the center in Cali and among the things I expect will change will be a more proactive and bipartisan approach to the homeless issue, and I expect to see some movement on things like concealed carry, although I don't expect much in the way of bipartisanship on CC issues.
Still, I won't be surprised if Cali eventually becomes "shall issue" instead of "may issue", and that is because the MAY ISSUE has in reality turned into WILL NEVER ISSUE.

Like any other state, there are plenty of ethical and responsible law abiding citizens who should not be denied a concealed carry permit in Cali.

I think a lot of it depends on what is going to happen next year. If Trump is reelected, expect to see Cali remain exclusively in Dem hands for a while. If he loses, things might relax a bit. Sorry but I feel that Trump has damaged conservatives more than they realize, especially here in "The Golden State".

One would hope. But I don't see California going moderate; they are already far left and leaning further left. What I see happening is an exodus of moderates, which will push them even further left. And they were doing this long before Trump, so I wouldn't lay it at his doorstep. He may be just accelerating the process.

But you are correct to say the nation needs both liberals and conservatives. I suspect that will happen no matter what the demographics say. When either side gains too much power they tend to excess, which enables the opposition. historically, this is how it has played out. But today, with each side trying to silence the opposition, I'm not so sure. It only works when both sides can be heard. Not allowing the opposition to speak on your campus is a bad sign. Having the entire MSM, including what newspapers are left, owned by a few powerful people is scary. Limiting of the public forum is a threat to any democracy.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

One would hope. But I don't see California going moderate; they are already far left and leaning further left. What I see happening is an exodus of moderates, which will push them even further left. And they were doing this long before Trump, so I wouldn't lay it at his doorstep. He may be just accelerating the process.

But you are correct to say the nation needs both liberals and conservatives. I suspect that will happen no matter what the demographics say. When either side gains too much power they tend to excess, which enables the opposition. historically, this is how it has played out. But today, with each side trying to silence the opposition, I'm not so sure. It only works when both sides can be heard. Not allowing the opposition to speak on your campus is a bad sign. Having the entire MSM, including what newspapers are left, owned by a few powerful people is scary. Limiting of the public forum is a threat to any democracy.

I don't know where you live but I witnessed some of what drove California voters to oust most on the Right.
We were laying off cops, closing schools, foregoing city services, even selling off public infrastructure, including entire buildings and facilities. Basic services were shutting down. Roads and bridges were falling apart.
Some towns and cities had to do away with their entire police depts, or fire depts.
The Republican austerity measures had begun to damage the ability of the state to even function in a normal manner.

In other words, California was rapidly becoming what Kansas became under Brownback, or what SEARS is becoming under CEO Eddie Lampert. In short, the Republicans "got weird" and went too far.

I don't lay all of this on Trump, because as you say, some of it was happening prior to Trump.
I'm saying exactly what you said, he is perhaps accelerating the process somewhat.

As for the whiny SJW's on college campuses, that nonsense is happening all over. Fortunately it appears to be a fad and some colleges are fighting back against it.

 

[Waddy]

I don't know where you live but I witnessed some of what drove California voters to oust most on the Right.
We were laying off cops, closing schools, foregoing city services, even selling off public infrastructure, including entire buildings and facilities. Basic services were shutting down. Roads and bridges were falling apart.
Some towns and cities had to do away with their entire police depts, or fire depts.
The Republican austerity measures had begun to damage the ability of the state to even function in a normal manner.

In other words, California was rapidly becoming what Kansas became under Brownback, or what SEARS is becoming under CEO Eddie Lampert. In short, the Republicans "got weird" and went too far.

I don't lay all of this on Trump, because as you say, some of it was happening prior to Trump.
I'm saying exactly what you said, he is perhaps accelerating the process somewhat.

As for the whiny SJW's on college campuses, that nonsense is happening all over. Fortunately it appears to be a fad and some colleges are fighting back against it.

Now you have those huge pension obligations and some of the highest taxes in the country. So things have swung the other way.

And, yep, I live in Kansas. And I understand what Brownback was trying to do. Other states were killing Kansas with lower corporate rates, especially neighboring states. Once Kansas was the aircraft manufacturing capital of the country. Boeing was anchored here. We once had several auto production plants. They all left. Our state tax base was more and more on residential and agricultural property tax. My local property taxes are the second highest in the nation. So Brownback took a chance and made major cuts. But industry didn't move back here, largely because some states, like New York, cut to the bone (New York; no taxes for the first ten years of a new business). Kansas didn't have the resources to compete with that. So now Brownback is out, and while taxes have been raised to the pre-Brownback levels, businesses haven't moved back here. Kansas is slowly dying on the vine. We continue to lose population, which started way before Brownback. Lots of little ghost towns now in western Kansas. I have no idea how to turn things around. For what I like to do, and now being retired, Kansas has been a great place to live. All my grown children live nearby, but they all work for government, which I believe is the only safe job around here. As safe, at least, as any job can be. I wouldn't tie my career on any private company in Kansas; it's just too unstable.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now you have those huge pension obligations and some of the highest taxes in the country. So things have swung the other way.

And, yep, I live in Kansas. And I understand what Brownback was trying to do. Other states were killing Kansas with lower corporate rates, especially neighboring states. Once Kansas was the aircraft manufacturing capital of the country. Boeing was anchored here. We once had several auto production plants. They all left. Our state tax base was more and more on residential and agricultural property tax. My local property taxes are the second highest in the nation. So Brownback took a chance and made major cuts. But industry didn't move back here, largely because some states, like New York, cut to the bone (New York; no taxes for the first ten years of a new business). Kansas didn't have the resources to compete with that. So now Brownback is out, and while taxes have been raised to the pre-Brownback levels, businesses haven't moved back here. Kansas is slowly dying on the vine. We continue to lose population, which started way before Brownback. Lots of little ghost towns now in western Kansas. I have no idea how to turn things around. For what I like to do, and now being retired, Kansas has been a great place to live. All my grown children live nearby, but they all work for government, which I believe is the only safe job around here. As safe, at least, as any job can be. I wouldn't tie my career on any private company in Kansas; it's just too unstable.

As I understood it, Brownback did a lot more than just cut corporate tax rates, but I do not live there so I do not have your perspective. Pension obligations? Every place in the country has pension obligations unless they decide to just default on them and dismiss them entirely.

Are you speaking of "unfunded liabilities?"

 

[MSgt]

It's not a melodramatic idea if it's true.

Which it is not....

In the aftermath of Katrina law enforcement canvassed neighborhoods searching homes and confiscating all the guns held by lawful owners. At a time when they should have been delegating scarce law enforcement resources to stopping the roving gangs, looters, rapists, and the rest of the criminal element taking advantage of the situation. And while many on the left have no interest in draconian gun laws, there is a sizeable movement that would do just that; take away most guns from honest citizens. So there is some truth to the accusation that the left wants to disarm America. Some on the left would do just that.

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.

Second, "some" on the Left is not THE Left, just as "some" on the Right, who would place a Swastika on the flag, are not THE right. And since the growing voices are coming from all over the political and business spectrum, one can hardly, and honestly, pretend that "the Left" is your problem. Some of this anti-gun perspective is coming from people who aren't even old enough to vote yet. You've got Donald Trump declaring that the GOP is petrified of the NRA. And businesses like Wal-Mart can hardly be characterized as "the Left." You are so bent on seeing "the Left" as the threat and politicizing this that you are missing the point entirely, which is the actual threat to my very-well earned Rights.

But I do think you're correct that eventually we will lose most of our current gun rights. One piece at a time, but eventually enough to greatly reduce or eliminate that right. But it isn't because gun rights proponents oppose legislation. They've already compromised away much of their gun rights over the past several decades. It is because our society is breeding mentally unstable entitled psychopaths prone to violence that will make gun ownership untenable for the rest of us.

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 a decade of gangster-inspired violence through the Tommy Gun, society got fed up and insisted that government do something, which resulted in the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. And it is not the mentally unstable's fault, because by definition, he is UNSTABLE. It is our fault as "responsible" gun owners for insisting that nothing is the best solution so that the next UNSTABLE person can abuse too. You want to avoid this future?

- 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. This is what threatens the Second Amendment. We can't even bring ourselves to a place of common sense that would make us at least as responsible as any military base, which maintains a healthy gun culture, proper security, and proper accountability. Notice how Beto O'Rourke's personal call to ban the AR didn't occur years ago. This is escalation in the face of obtuse stubbornness to do nothing. At this rate, we, as a people, are showing that we don't deserve our Second Amendment. Again, I reference the American society of the 1920s that took steps to not only protect society, but preserve a healthier Second Amendment.

 

[aociswundumho]

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.

Here's your beloved law enforcement beating up a little old lady and confiscating her small revolver during Katrina. That link is timestamped, you only have to watch it for 10 seconds to see the cops engage in mythical behavior.

 

[aociswundumho]

After a decade of gangster-inspired violence through the Tommy Gun, society got fed up and insisted that government do something, which resulted in the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934.

This is a comical distortion of what actually happened. Gangster violence rose throughout the 20s because the rotten federal government amended the Constitution to ban the sale, production, and transportation of alcohol. Prohibition, btw, was pushed by the anti saloon league which was very much part of the Progressive movement. The rise in violence was completely the fault of the federal government. When the idiots repealed Prohibition in 1933, the homicide rate plummeted, but the a**holes passed the NFA in 1934 anyway:

 

[MSgt]

Here's your beloved law enforcement beating up a little old lady and confiscating her small revolver during Katrina. That link is timestamped, you only have to watch it for 10 seconds to see the cops engage in mythical behavior.

Yes, this would be the infamous case of the overzealous cop in a scenario, in which people exaggerated into a definition of the whole. It happened in other places as well where cops erred on the side of disarming instead of trusting in a situation where society had completely broken down. They also chose to confiscate raher than allow people to take their gun to shelters. Again, this is not tyrannical government. In fact, not only was there no government policy to confiscate as local authorities winged it, but government later reversed hundreds of the confiscations. See how this sort of thing works? But it is from this that the myth was born and it is from this that you people cling so desperately to legitimize your nonsense.

And speaking of nonsense, notice how you provided exactly what I am talking about:

- First, the argument that today's gun ownership is about preventing the tyranny of government falls completely apart when they just allow their guns to be confiscated. The whole idea behind "you can take my gun from my cold dead hands" is presented for the BS that it is.

- Second, that was not a "small" revolver, which means that you preferred to accept the media's description of it because it fits better into the myth. The media chose to exaggerate then, just like now all guns are described as massive civilization killers.

- Third, you prefer the myth to the reality, in which not only had society broken down and cops had to try to create a sense of security/stability, but government gave hundreds back because a lawsuit (society) demanded it.

Oh...the tyranny.

 

[MSgt]

This is a comical distortion of what actually happened. Gangster violence rose throughout the 20s because the rotten federal government amended the Constitution to ban the sale, production, and transportation of alcohol. Prohibition, btw, was pushed by the anti saloon league which was very much part of the Progressive movement. The rise in violence was completely the fault of the federal government. When the idiots repealed Prohibition in 1933, the homicide rate plummeted, but the a**holes passed the NFA in 1934 anyway:

View attachment 67263800

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) and this had mostly all to do with the Depression, not simply Prohibition, in which gangsters largely only killed their own and law enforcement over bootlegging business. Only after the economy showed signs of recovery in 1934-37, did the homicide rate drop by 20 percent (or plummet) across the country. 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?

In other words, the widespread violent crime rate was due largely to the dire socioeconomic problems of society, not Prohibition. Now, what I wrote was absolutely true to history. It was the Tommy gun that people saw in the media and it was the Tommy gun that was the object that eventually saw to the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. So, I have no idea what you mean by a "comical distortion" of anything. You clearly sought to distort and spin.

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...or are you too busy trying to represent the militia nonsense that would have civilians pretending to be a proper military so that they can maintain their delusions?

 

[aociswundumho]

Yes, this would be the infamous case of the overzealous cop in a scenario, in which people exaggerated into a definition of the whole. It happened in other places as well where cops erred on the side of disarming instead of trusting in a situation where society had completely broken down. They also chose to confiscate raher than allow people to take their gun to shelters. Again, this is not tyrannical government. In fact, not only was there no government policy to confiscate as local authorities winged it, but government later reversed hundreds of the confiscations. See how this sort of thing works? But it is from this that the myth was born and it is from this that you people cling so desperately to legitimize your nonsense.

So which is it? Was it one bad cop or was it hundreds of confiscations?

First, the argument that today's gun ownership is about preventing the tyranny of government falls completely apart when they just allow their guns to be confiscated.

First, there was no policy to confiscate and you said so yourself:

This In fact, not only was there no government policy to confiscate as local authorities winged it,

Second, this was right after a major cat 5 hurricane caused enormous damage to the entire area. If someone like Beto were to get elected and implement some sort of federal program where they go door-to-door confiscating firearms from peaceful people in a non-emergency situation, you're going to get a much different response.

Third, look at how these cowardly pigs handled this tiny old woman. Here's a timestamp where she describes her injuries. All they had to do was asked her for the gun and she would have handed it over. If that doesn't make your blood boil, then there's something wrong with you, or you're a leftist (same thing). That they can't even handle an old woman properly doesn't bode well for any sort of mass confiscation program.

Second, that was not a "small" revolver, which means that you preferred to accept the media's description of it because it fits better into the myth.

I can't tell, but it looks like a small frame revolver and that's how the news described it. What caliber do you think it is?

Third, you prefer the myth to the reality, in which not only had society broken down and cops had to try to create a sense of security/stability,

Society had not "broken down", and the cops made a bad situation worse.