Home invasion repelled with guns

[TomasaurusREKT]

I don't know why anyone is even trying for gun control. You give them an inch they'll take a mile. 

Gun confiscation would equal a second Civil War that I would gladly participate in. The left won't get my guns as long as I'm still breathing.

Edited June 5, 2018 by TomasaurusREKT

[AnchorSteam]

How gun control leads to Genocide -

 

Quote

 

Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy [contributes] to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage.  Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered – one does not usually lead to the other – ... it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.
...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.  From 1929 to 1953, 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.  From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.

According to Stephen Halbrook, the "Armenian Genocide Didn't Happen by Accident."  In fact, "Ottoman law made it a crime to possess a firearm without government permission.  The Armenians, as British traveler H. F. B. Lynch wrote in 1901, were 'rigorously prohibited from possessing firearms.'"  Then, in 1915, the "Ottomans also decreed that any firearms the Armenians possessed were to be surrendered to the government.  Failing to do so, the decree said, 'will be very severely punished when the arms are discovered.'"

In 1938, Germany established gun control.  From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were rounded up and exterminated.

There is more.  In 1935, China established gun control.  From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.  These rules were based on Articles 186-7, Penal Code; Article 9, Security Law.
 

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.  From 1981 to 1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control.  From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were  rounded up and exterminated.

"Gun control is predicated on the belief that private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms."  Instead, it is the "state [that] should have a 'monopoly on violence' because it is less violent than individuals."  Consequently, "firearms should be taken away from private citizens because only the state is responsible enough to handle them."

But "states are statistically far more violent than individuals."  After all, in the 20th century alone, millions of people died at the hands of their own governments.

In a review of the book Lethal Laws, by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice, David B. Kopel asserts that "the most important benefit of defensive arms is their deterrent power.  As long as a potential dictator ... must take into account very serious risks involved with taking action against the American people, then the prospect for such actions being taken becomes markedly smaller."

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/does_gun_control_lead_to_genocide.html

[psyche101]

On 6/2/2018 at 4:09 AM, skliss said:

A) These guys seemed to be all around the same age. 

The 18 year old who was slaughtered had a little brother at the scene who got to watch him die. Cayden Laura more was 15. The killer 24. Seems a notable difference to me. There was a 15 and 16 year old there. 

Quote

B ) The victims were in the house sleeping peacefully at home when they had their front door kicked in and a shot fired. 

No that's not true, they heard them outside but waited for them to open the front door before mowing them down in a hail of bullets. 

The four people inside the house told deputies they woke up to loud noises and yelling. They realized they were being threatened, armed themselves and exchanged gunfire with the suspects, deputies said

https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.actionnewsjax.com/www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/deputies-investigate-glen-st-mary-shooting-that-hurt-three-people/732793341

Quote

C ) Not that's it any of your business, but my son's were always too mature for Facebook. Neither have active accounts since round Jr. High age. They think it's a waste of time.

If you are going to discuss the issue its a valid question. My son is 16, uses Facebook and responsibly. People argue over lots of things, gun culture allows a complacency where senseless deaths like this not only happen, but somehow some people see this as something other than the senseless tragedy that it is. That alone says people ate not responsible with gun culture and it offers a very warped idea of justice. As I keep saying, this just would not end like this in any country that has gun regulation. 

People who this this is justice only make gun culture look worse than it already does to the majority of people outside of the US. 

[psyche101]

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

Wow, you are a zealot, still blaming the victims....the door was undoubtedly kicked open.

You feel that kicking open a door deserves a death sentance do you? 

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

Do you know how powerful a shot is?  He was probably thrown backwards out the open door!

So you agree if he got inside it was not very far? 

He was riddled with bullets from an AR15, I'm pretty sure I've read here from people who use guns that it doesn't have much of a kick at all, somthing like a. 22 I've heard. Is that not true? 

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

It doesnt matter who all had masks...maybe they all did.

Yes it does, someone is dead, all details should matter.  

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

His mask could have been blown off, he could have taken it off or someone with him could have taken it off...there's a myriad of possiblities

With a bullet hole in it? 

That kinda removes the possibility of the wearer even being capable of doing so. 

The amount of detail people are willing to overlook to support gun ownership is nothing short of astounding. 

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

You just keep changing the story to fit the narrative you want.

Please provide examples of your accusation. 

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

Do you think we don't have the best forensic teams in the world here? Do you not know that any incident where a firearm is discharged,  especially in the case of a fatality, is scrutinized with a fine tooth comb? 

That's yet to be seen in this case. Considering that people support this senseless death doesn't fill me with confidence that it will be handled as a killing rather than focusing on the home Invasion aspect. 

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

The bottom line is.....you don't go to someone's house with an intent to harm, kick open the door, fire off a shot and not expect them to fire back. If you do then you have chosen a course likely to get you hurt or killed and your companions with you. Who've been charged in this case? The home invaders...that says the investigation shows after interviewing both sides, they're the ones at fault.

And Facebook fights should not end in death, that shows that some people are always going to be a threat. I don't see how that doesn't spell a real need for regulation. 

The invaders were locked up straight away. I'm not reading about just investigation it sound more like guilty until proven innocent and that seems the norm with gun culture  and how this situation developed as it did. 

On 6/2/2018 at 4:22 AM, skliss said:

Is it a stupid, sad, horrible reason to die...yes...but people die for making bad decisions every day.

This case has the introduced element of a lax attitude toward deadly weapons resulting in the worst possible outcome. It doesn't justify home defence with weapons. With regulation, there would not have been any involved. 

[psyche101]

On 6/2/2018 at 10:09 AM, Alaric said:

I think you misunderstood what was written, it speaks of a “nascent gun control movement”... it’s talking about a citizen’s gun control movement. Which did not previously exist because, from 1965 to 1986, we were ruled by a dictator whose gun controls were so strict that there was no point.

As for “can’t be enforced all that tightly”, see my previous post regarding Marcos’s gun control policy. If a dictator can’t effectively enforce gun control then who can?

The Australian government managed it without dictatorship. 

Its the people who wanted a safer community that made it work, that's the magic ingredient that made it work here. Public support. 

On 6/2/2018 at 10:09 AM, Alaric said:

I think you have a highly unrealistic view of just how many guns are in Australia.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150

“More than 1 million guns were destroyed in the aftermath of the massacre, but research shows Australians have restocked over the past 10 years, importing more than 1 million firearms.”

“Despite that, the number of gun-related deaths has halved since the gun buyback.”

That last bit is particularly interesting as it pretty much proves more guns doesn’t equal more gun deaths.

No it doesn't and its an outdated article that doesn't paint an accurate picture. For instance, from the article:

"It is a common feature when police are searching bikies or Middle Eastern crime groups that weapons are found,"

I was accused of being racist by the OP for stating that very cause, ethnic groups who are yet to come to grips with our laws, more familiar with a lawless state of being. 

They are mostly fighting amongst themselves and don't have an impact on the average person. Or home Invasion. 

Biker groups were considered a real problem undermining the good work that regulation did. They are gone now. Outlawed a couple of years ago. That took care of that gun source and ended their intimidation tactics and protection racquets. That's just a memory now. The problem has been addressed. 

[psyche101]

On 6/2/2018 at 10:47 AM, Alaric said:

How so? That doesn’t make any sense at all. The ban was implemented in 1996... gun deaths continued to decrease, while gun ownership has steadily increased so that in 2018 there are just as many guns as before. So if more gun laws equals less gun deaths, what new gun control laws were passed that account for the current level of guns but no increase in gun deaths?

1 million more guns for 7 million more people? They didn't mention that bit I notice. Or that in 22 years there might be need for replacements for registered enthusiasts and farmers. 

Seems quite reasonable to me, its not still 1996 after all. 

[psyche101]

On 6/2/2018 at 2:08 PM, Alaric said:

I think this just may be the most productive line of questioning you’ve hit on so far. 

Some want to make like guns are the “Root of All Evil” and say that their mere presence makes for a violent and broken society... that is just not the case. There was no gun control whatsoever in the United States until 1934, yet all these “gun violence” incidents are a fairly recent phenomenon.  

Your seriously comparing populations and society today to what it was 90 years ago? How many had automatic weapons for the home defence excuse 90 years ago? 

On 6/2/2018 at 2:08 PM, Alaric said:

So really, the relevant question is: What factors make certain societies or subcultures more susceptible to the use of violence?

Does it not make sense to disarm such people until that question is properly answered? Why blame anything but guns when guns only worsen such a situation? 

[psyche101]

On 6/2/2018 at 3:20 PM, Alaric said:

Which naturally leads us to the largest force multiplier of all: firearms.

A people who were already fans of weapons in general, naturally gravitated to the most effective weapon we’ve invented so far. So, already fans of guns and accustomed to the use of violence if and when necessary... we have another force multiplier: Philippine Cinema. Hollywood likes to disavow any culpability whatsoever... but is there really no connection? One of the most common tropes in Philippine Cinema is “A Good Man Pushed Too Far by the Powers that Be”, and guess what the solution is? Guns... lots and lots of guns. Think “Rambo: First Blood”.

Corrupt cops hassle you and take it too far? Guns. Robber baron steals your land and turns your family out into the street? Guns. Gang kills your wife and rapes your daughter? Guns. Corrupt politician targets you for extermination because your are running against him? Guns. Rival businesman sends a hit squad to kill you and your family? Yep, you guessed it: Guns. BTW, the above may be things you see in a movie to most of you, but these are actually for real regular occurrences in the Philippines... so, when these things happen in real life, guess what? Guns and more guns.

Does life imitate art or the other way around? Which came first? Who knows? But for sure, there is a connection... one reinforces the other. A culture of violence and disregard for human life seems to be much more of a factor than the just mere presence of guns.

Here’s the thing: 

Everybody thinks they’re a good person (so all we’re missing is the “pushed too far” part)

Here’s the problem: 

Young-uns these days believe things like someone expressing a differing opinion actually constitutes an attack on their person... and they need a “safe space” to protect them.

Put the two of them together and you have the perfect storm. Fragile egos that can’t handle reality, a sense of entitlement along with powerlessness and impotence... because they always got participation trophies just for showing up... and now they can’t actually get anything done in the real world. So of course it must be the fault of this person that person or the other person, because I’m just great (my mom tells me so).

Guns advantage criminals more so than they offer protection. 

[psyche101]

On 6/3/2018 at 11:04 AM, F3SS said:

 

[psyche101]

On 6/3/2018 at 11:57 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Those guns are innocent. All they did was steal a loaf of bread in order to survive in the UK and were transported here.

And its just a guess more than doubled what the official report says. 

From the link

 

Mr Dawson said that while the report estimates that there are 260,000 illegal guns in Australia, if a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime calculation to estimate the number of illegal guns in any given country was used, that number could be as high as 600,000.

[psyche101]

23 hours ago, TomasaurusREKT said:

I don't know why anyone is even trying for gun control. You give them an inch they'll take a mile. 

Gun confiscation would equal a second Civil War that I would gladly participate in. The left won't get my guns as long as I'm still breathing.

Regulation isn't confiscation. Not sure why that isn't obvious. 

These sort of ignorant bravado statements make gun culture look worse than it already does. 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

How gun control leads to Genocide -

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/does_gun_control_lead_to_genocide.html

Biggest straw grab in the thread. If that was right, all Australians would be dead by now, yet while schools get shot up in the US, its just sad news to us. 

[AnchorSteam]

My advice to everyone;  Don't feed the serial Troll. 

[aztek]

wow, that is a lot of words , that is dedication,  bravo.

[psyche101]

30 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

My advice to everyone;  Don't feed the serial Troll. 

I wouldn't discourage the posters who are better at this than you are. 

[Myles]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You feel that kicking open a door deserves a death sentance do you? 

 

When coupled with:

It not being your home

You are masked

You are armed

Being shot is a very reasonable outcome.

 

[TomasaurusREKT]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Regulation isn't confiscation. Not sure why that isn't obvious. 

These sort of ignorant bravado statements make gun culture look worse than it already does. 

Lol. You mentioning ignorance is funny. You know NOTHING of gun culture but seem to love giving a biased opinion on the matter.

[Dark_Grey]

10 hours ago, aztek said:

wow, that is a lot of words , that is dedication,  bravo.

You have to hand it to @psyche101 - the man is holding his own on multiple fronts in this thread. 

[The Narcisse]

On 4/25/2018 at 4:33 PM, Setton said:

Meanwhile in other parts of the world:

'Residents didn't need guns to fight off home invasion because it didn't happen.'

Before you go shouting about how great it is that people use guns to stop a crime, think about why they had to in the first place. 

**

Edited June 6, 2018 by The Narcisse
decided I didn't need the headache of this argument today

[Setton]

50 minutes ago, The Narcisse said:

**

Good choice for both of us. 

[Myles]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

When coupled with:

It not being your home

You are masked

You are armed

Being shot is a very reasonable outcome.

 

I almost forgot that the intruders fired the first shot. 

[The Narcisse]

23 minutes ago, Setton said:

Good choice for both of us. 

I believe I was actually coming down on your side. 

[skliss]

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The 18 year old who was slaughtered had a little brother at the scene who got to watch him die. Cayden Laura more was 15. The killer 24. Seems a notable difference to me. There was a 15 and 16 year old there. 

The fact that they were there is the fault of those who got in a car and deliberately drove to someone's home with the intent to harm. Again, the victims are the people in the home that was invaded.

 

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

they woke up to loud noises and yelling. They realized they were being threatened, armed themselves and exchanged gunfire with the suspects, deputies said

Of course they did!! They were afraid for their lives!! Note "exchanged gunfire" meaning shots were fired by both sides

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

something other than the senseless tragedy that it is

Of course it's a senseless tragedy! We've all said that...the difference is you are blaming the victims for protecting themselves. None of this would have happened if the home invaders had stayed in their own homes that night. How the fight started has no bearing on the outcome, it's the actions of the aggressors that dictated the event and its outcome.

[skliss]

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

So you agree if he got inside it was not very far?

Doesnt matter how far, he kicked the door in at a home that wasn'this and fired off a shot. He was a threat to those inside.

 

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

He was riddled with bullets from an AR15, I'm pretty sure I've read here from people who use guns that it doesn't have much of a kick at all, somthing like a. 22 I've heard. Is that not true? 

I read only 3 shots actually hit anything, don't consider that to equal "riddled". I'm not a gun person so I know less than nothing about them. I assume someone who gets shot in the head will be pushed back....he could be 3 steps in, just fall over backwards and his head could be across the threshold. I'm sure the investigating officers are competent to make these determinations.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

hat kinda removes the possibility of the wearer even being capable of doing so.

Not really, I don't know if he died instantly. People have been shot in the head and survived. Maybe one of his friends took it off.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Please provide examples of your accusation. 

I don't have the time or the interest.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And Facebook fights should not end in death, that shows that some people are always going to be a threat. I don't see how that doesn't spell a real need for regulation. 

You're right, Facebook fights are stupid and shouldn't end in death..that's squarely on the shoulders of the idiots who invaded the home of others. I don't see how it does spell a need for regulation.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

it sound more like guilty until proven innocent and that seems the norm with gun culture  and how this situation developed as it did.

That's just hyperbole without any basis in fact.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't justify home defence with weapons. With regulation, there would not have been any involved. 

It absolutely does!! And you don't know that, it's assumption on your part.

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Myles said:

I almost forgot that the intruders fired the first shot. 

 

10 hours ago, Myles said:

When coupled with:

It not being your home

You are masked

You are armed

Being shot is a very reasonable outcome.

 

No it really isn't, not over a Facebook fight. This is where is see gun culture separating people from their humanity. If it was one of the posters sons making such a deadly mistake I doubt the reaction would be the same. Seeing life regarded as so cheap is just appalling.