tinselwolverine said:

Well, they're usually empty and in the trash by the time an intruder would typically try to break in.

So they might not be the handiest thing to grab at the time.

I like the out of the box thinking though.

Click to expand...

The trash?! You should be recycling those instead of warming the planet with them.

tinselwolverine said:

A handgun in the home that never leaves the home is a very different thing, especially for a single woman alone; right after the LA riots and the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina; after both of those events a lot of single women in those towns got hand guns for home self defense.

Me personally, I feel that I would be better taking an intruder immediately with my bare hands (feet, elbows, knees, leverage, any object immediately at hand that could be used as an impromptu weapon) than taking the time to ready a gun to fire.

Click to expand...

It's different but there are people who have reasons to carry for self defense as well. Where the gun is is not important - if an armed citizen w/ a legal weapon shoots and kills an armed assailant I don't think that makes them a pussy and I doubt they or their families care that someone calls them a pussy - it's better than "victim".

Spartanmack said:

if an armed citizen w/ a legal weapon shoots and kills an armed assailant I don't think that makes them a pussy and I doubt they or their families care that someone calls them a pussy - it's better than "victim".

Click to expand...

Makes them a bad ass, if you ask me.

Edit: Not as much of a bad ass as sinking a broken off Mickey in their temple, mind you, but still a bad ass.

Spartanmack said:

The trash?! You should be recycling those instead of warming the planet with them.

Click to expand...

The trash service actually does that itself.

They take the trash to skid row and have the hobos collect up all the recyclables and redeem them.

Spartanmack said:

It's different but there are people who have reasons to carry for self defense as well. Where the gun is is not important - if an armed citizen w/ a legal weapon shoots and kills an armed assailant I don't think that makes them a pussy and I doubt they or their families care that someone calls them a pussy - it's better than "victim".

Click to expand...

I don't know what the concealed carry permit requirements are in California, but I think they're pretty stiff.

I think a person needs to document a legitimate concern for their safety than a "typical" a person, and a person needs a pretty clean record.

I don't know that I've ever heard a news story of a person who was carrying a handgun with a concealed carry permit being charged with misusing the weapon.

tinselwolverine said:

A handgun in the home that never leaves the home is a very different thing, especially for a single woman alone; right after the LA riots and the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina; after both of those events a lot of single women in those towns got hand guns for home self defense.

Me personally, I feel that I would be better taking an intruder immediately with my bare hands (feet, elbows, knees, leverage, any object immediately at hand that could be used as an impromptu weapon) than taking the time to ready a gun to fire.

Click to expand...

Handguns are terrible for home defense. They are hard to aim, terrible when it's dark/low light conditions. The only advantage of a handgun are they are small, concealable, and more easily portable. Of course they also look more like something a child would want to play with as well.

If you're talking about a gun that never leaves the house it shouldn't be a handgun. A 20 gauge pump shotgun is far more effective, most time you wont even have to shoot it, just jack a shell in to the chamber and said creeper probably shits himself and runs off.

Thumb said:

Handguns are terrible for home defense. They are hard to aim, terrible when it's dark/low light conditions. The only advantage of a handgun are they are small, concealable, and more easily portable. Of course they also look more like something a child would want to play with as well.

If you're talking about a gun that never leaves the house it shouldn't be a handgun. A 20 gauge pump shotgun is far more effective, most time you wont even have to shoot it, just jack a shell in to the chamber and said creeper probably shits himself and runs off.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

Thumb said:

If you're talking about a gun that never leaves the house it shouldn't be a handgun. A 20 gauge pump shotgun is far more effective, most time you wont even have to shoot it, just jack a shell in to the chamber and said creeper probably shits himself and runs off.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I think I'll stick with a front kick to the balls followed by a sidekick to the knee sliding down to a stomp on the foot followed a hook to the throat and an overhand cross to the jaw.

Then a call to 911.

If someone intrudes into my home I want to be sure 1) the person is injured and 2) apprehended.

Plus I don't want to risk having any stranger get his shit onto my floor.

tinselwolverine said:

Thanks.

I think I'll stick with a front kick to the balls followed by a sidekick to the knee sliding down to a stomp on the foot followed a hook to the throat and an overhand cross to the jaw.

Then a call to 911.

If someone intrudes into my home I want to be sure 1) the person is injured and 2) apprehended.

Plus I don't want to risk having any stranger get his shit onto my floor.

Click to expand...

Like my sister says
"Its all about the Kung Fu".

biggunsbob said:

Like my sister says
"Its all about the Kung Fu".

Click to expand...

Sister so wise.

Here's some more data...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ought-170-million-guns-violent-crime-fell-51/

The article cites data from the ATF, FBI and CRS - all agencies of government. It clearly shows as Americans purchased 170mm new guns since 1991, violent crimes including murder have decreased by 51%. Now, this could be correlation and not causation, which is an argument put forth anytime turd doesn't like pesky data that gets in the way of his agenda. Clearly there are a number of factors at play like the 3 strikes law that put a lot of bad guys in prison for life so it's crazy to say the reduction was exclusively due to 1 single factor. However, it clearly blows the argument that more guns leads to more crime clear out of the water.

Breitbart! Der, derrr, derrrrr.

Spartanmack said:

... Now, this could be correlation and not causation, which is an argument put forth anytime turd doesn't like pesky data that gets in the way of his agenda. ...

Click to expand...

Oh jeez. If only someone who posts here had a comic about that.

Correlation/causation with guns and homicides is tricky, but it's clear there is correlation. Even though over time, we have more guns and less crime nationally. By location, where there are more guns there is more crime. And there's the argument that wherever there is more crime, people are more likely to buy guns. The homicide rate in the US is 4-5x the rate in a lot of Europe.

European rates have been steady for a long time while ours bounce around a lot.





So I'm not totally sold on the gun ownership increase thing. While the number of guns per person has been increasing dramatically, the % of households with guns has been pretty steady. I don't think more people have access to guns, it's just that people with gun have more now.

michchamp said:

Oh jeez. If only someone who posts here had a comic about that.

Click to expand...

Cuz we all know, comics trump data every time.

Gulo Blue said:

...
So I'm not totally sold on the gun ownership increase thing. While the number of guns per person has been increasing dramatically, the % of households with guns has been pretty steady. I don't think more people have access to guns, it's just that people with gun have more now.

Click to expand...

looking back to 1991, I think that's when the NRA really started with the gun-nut-type "President XYZ is coming to take your guns" stuff that drove sales among the crazies.

if gun ownership was widespread, and tied to high-crime areas that saw declines in crime over that time period, you could make the case, but there needs to be some evidence that gun sales aren't concentrated among a certain (stupid) percentage of the population, and the increase in ownership occurs in every jurisdiction that witnessed a drop in crime over this time period. And I suspect this is impossible, unless you can argue with a straight face that all those hipsters that gentrified Brooklyn were packing heat, and rented their lofts at gunpoint, defended their artisanal craft brewing pubs with hot lead, etc.

to the contrary:

there are studies that show a strong correlation with increased gun ownership and (surprise, surprise) more gun violence (link).

WaPo article stating that the only thing pro-gun studies show is that allowing concealed carry doesn't increase crime. Tying it to a reduction in crime is arguable at best, completely wrong at worst (though those adjectives depend on your point of view).

cited in the WaPo article, John Donohue argues against the premise that gun widespread gun ownership deters crime:
Those liberal propagandists at Fox News published this story citing increased gun ownership and a three-fold increase of suicides and a two-fold increase in gun-committed homicides:
duh... you think?

An objective survey of the facts would seem to support the conclusion that crime rates have been declining since roughly 1990 for a variety of factors, mainly socio-economic (perhaps the reduction of lead poisoning? link, link), and gun ownership, while it may have contributed to some portion of the decline, or not, can be proven to increase the risk of gun violence within the greater trend of declines in crime, and therefore itself should be reduced, since it represents a particular risk to innocent people by making murders, suicides, mass-shootings, etc. easier to commit.

Nice - so data that proves you wrong is inconclusive and you prove it by posting articles that point out correlations using more inconclusive data, after stating yourself, that it's impossible to prove. Or did you mean it's only impossible to prove you wrong and that correlation proves causation when you fit the data to your argument? You argue against correlation/causation, as if that was the case I was making after I acknowledged that it could just be correlation. You also say that the data isn't helpful because it's not geographically granular enough and therefore impossible to prove. Then in the next breath you post a bunch hooey from a wapo article where a "journalist" draws a conclusion based purely on a correlation at a global level (the least geographically specific data possible) and say increases in guns leads to increases in crime.

You base your arguments on the very same flaws you point out to dispute views you oppose.

By the way, did you buy your gun post 1991? are you among that

michchamp said:

certain (stupid) percentage of the population?

Click to expand...

Spartanmack said:

Nice - so data that proves you wrong is inconclusive and you prove it by posting articles that point out correlations using more inconclusive data, after stating yourself, that it's impossible to prove. Or did you mean it's only impossible to prove you wrong and that correlation proves causation when you fit the data to your argument? You argue against correlation/causation, as if that was the case I was making after I acknowledged that it could just be correlation. You also say that the data isn't helpful because it's not geographically granular enough and therefore impossible to prove. Then in the next breath you post a bunch hooey from a wapo article where a "journalist" draws a conclusion based purely on a correlation at a global level (the least geographically specific data possible) and say increases in guns leads to increases in crime.

You base your arguments on the very same flaws you point out to dispute views you oppose.

By the way, did you buy your gun post 1991? are you among that

Click to expand...

I know you've got nothing left when you just start ranting like that, writing a bunch of words that doesn't represent anything I said.

michchamp said:

I know you've got nothing left when you just start ranting like that, writing a bunch of words that doesn't represent anything I said.

Click to expand...

You accuse me of ranting when I call you out for your substance-free rant. Your playbook has fewer plays than a high school powder puff team.

Meant to post this the other day but got busy.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oak...lifters-as-they-leave-auburn-hills-home-depot

This is the problem with guns. There is always going to be some idiot who thinks they are Wyatt Earp and because they have a gun they can be the hero.

If this woman is not charged, it's a travesty. She fired a gun when no ones life was threatened. If a police officer did the same thing and shot at a fleeing suspect like that he'd be suspended on the spot.

People try to make out the shooting problems as the mentally unstable, but in reality the people who are supposedly "responsible gun owners" can be just as bad.

Thumb said:

Meant to post this the other day but got busy.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oak...lifters-as-they-leave-auburn-hills-home-depot

This is the problem with guns. There is always going to be some idiot who thinks they are Wyatt Earp and because they have a gun they can be the hero.

If this woman is not charged, it's a travesty. She fired a gun when no ones life was threatened. If a police officer did the same thing and shot at a fleeing suspect like that he'd be suspended on the spot.

People try to make out the shooting problems as the mentally unstable, but in reality the people who are supposedly "responsible gun owners" can be just as bad.

Click to expand...

shooting at suspected shoplifters... that's fucking insane. I'm surprised it hasn't been more widely publicized.

I think it will take one or two more disasters like this before retards wake up and realize guns should not be the solution to most problems, even criminal ones.

they should throw the book at her and make a big deal of it to deter other wannabes. you'd think even the NRA would support charges here, since this sort of vigilante-ism will inevitably result in innocent people getting shot, provoking a backlash from an American public that is more or less 50/50 on the issue, just like the "Open Carry Texas" buffoons did when they started bringing AKs & ARs into Chipotle.