Houston man uses AR-15 to defend his home against three violent thugs

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

I lived in Europe, e.g. Ireland and was never a victim, ditto for all my friends and family in living throughout the rest of Europe. So sorry you were so frightened of venturing outside without a firearm. Must be truly terrible to live in such fear. Hopefully your fear won't cause you to kill someone, like what seems to happen on a daily basis in good old MERICA.

 Sounds like your really unhappy with your choice of domiciles.  Any plans to move soon?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Sonea said:

Here is the bigger picture.

 

Average defensive use of guns in the US per year is 67,000.

 https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

 

There are 15 million AR15s. There are about 300 million guns in america.

 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171

 

As a fraction of defensive gun uses the total for AR15s would be roughly 3,350.

Total deaths by AR15 are likely somewhere between 100 - 160 per year.

 

 

 

 

What?  Logic?

And 

You mean 0.00005333% ??

[smilesammich 10,727]

three pages in, still no link to the op. 

[Póg mo 1,749]

50 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 Sounds like your really unhappy with your choice of domiciles.  Any plans to move soon?

We just adopted three kids so we won't be going anywhere in the near future. I would love to go back to Asia, or move to France at some point though. Thanks for your concern. 

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Listen, I'm pro second Amendment and people should be free to keep guns in their residence with no license (not possible in many places).

However, an assault rifle is not a self-defense minded weapon (although it worked well for this man in Houston).

In my opinion, civilians have no business in owning a machine gun (or semi-machine gun). What's next? Why not a grenade at this point?

Also, a 19-year old should have no business in buying any gun. It Is absurd that he could not legally buy a beer but hey, an AR-15 no problem (even disregarding his mental health).

I'm afraid this will be backfiring against all gun owners.

Seriously, what's the point in owning an assault weapon? Want to have some fun firing it? I understand... go to the range where you can rent it and shoot it.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

We just adopted three kids 

congrats!

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

congrats!

Thanks.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

19 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

We just adopted three kids so we won't be going anywhere in the near future. I would love to go back to Asia, or move to France at some point though. Thanks for your concern. 

Good on you for the adoptions!  The USA is not the only country that allows kids, however.  And since you seem so disenchanted with the US, I thought perhaps you'd be happier elsewhere. 

 

If I took your comments wrong, sorry.  But you sound as if you disagree with many US policies, not just guns.

[jg121783 3,915]

8 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

LOL if you think having a gun makes you more American than anybody else you're gravely mistaken.

I don't need to have a gun, thats what the military is for, the US didn't have one back in the 18th century. The second amendment is antiquated and outdated.

There was no TV and mass media in the 18th century therefor by your logic the first amendment is antiquated and outdated.

 

7 hours ago, Póg mo said:

I lived in Europe, e.g. Ireland and was never a victim, ditto for all my friends and family in living throughout the rest of Europe. So sorry you were so frightened of venturing outside without a firearm. Must be truly terrible to live in such fear. Hopefully your fear won't cause you to kill someone, like what seems to happen on a daily basis in good old MERICA.

Yeah because your experience alone is identical to everyone else's experience.

 

7 hours ago, Sonea said:

Here is the bigger picture.

 

Average defensive use of guns in the US per year is 67,000.

 https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

 

There are 15 million AR15s. There are about 300 million guns in america.

 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171

 

As a fraction of defensive gun uses the total for AR15s would be roughly 3,350.

Total deaths by AR15 are likely somewhere between 100 - 160 per year.

 

 

 

 

Your cherry picking a straw man argument there.

[Sonea 138]

56 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

 

 

Your cherry picking a straw man argument there.

With all due respect, I do not see anything related to a straw man argument in my post. Rather than just "declare" something a strawman, please actually take the time to properly explain why you think something should be considered as such.

[Sonea 138]

5 hours ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

Listen, I'm pro second Amendment and people should be free to keep guns in their residence with no license (not possible in many places).

However, an assault rifle is not a self-defense minded weapon (although it worked well for this man in Houston).

In my opinion, civilians have no business in owning a machine gun (or semi-machine gun). What's next? Why not a grenade at this point?

Also, a 19-year old should have no business in buying any gun. It Is absurd that he could not legally buy a beer but hey, an AR-15 no problem (even disregarding his mental health).

I'm afraid this will be backfiring against all gun owners.

Seriously, what's the point in owning an assault weapon? Want to have some fun firing it? I understand... go to the range where you can rent it and shoot it.

I agree with some of what you are saying but not all.

 

I'll start with what I disagree with:

 

1. Assault rifles (which are rifles that use an intermediate cartridge and are select fire) are controlled by the NFA. They are extremely expensive and rare and have not been used in a crime that I'm aware in decades.

 

2. Machine gun ownership is also tied to the NFA and rare. They also are not used in crime. 

 

3. There is no such thing as a semi-machine gun. I think you mean submachine?

 

4. Assault Weapon is somewhat meaningless as a term. It means something different in Mass. than in California or at the Federal level. It isn't a technical term, its a political term.

 

Now I do agree that since the majority  of these attacks are perpetrated by young men, then scrutiny of this group needs to be greater. 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Sonea

[dentsflogged 352]

Such a contentious topic, but I feel the need to weigh in from my point of view.

 

I'm sure just about everyone has seen that Aussie comedian going off on his rant about "Australia had one of the largest mass shootings in the world, and our government said THATS IT NO MORE GUNS ... and no more mass shootings" 

 

It's obviously not as easy as all that. Especially in a place that is so heavily in favour of one side of the argument or the other.

 

I genuinely believe in the fact that guns are or can be a good thing.  I like shooting, I wouldn't mind learning to hunt when I've finally moved.  But I'm not sure that I believe that everyone has the right to every kind of firearm that they can get their hands on. 

 

Yes, there are other ways for large numbers of people to be killed (as someone so thoughtfully pointed out earlier in the thread, medical mishaps kill over 200,000 per year) but the big picture is this: recent events have shown us that having access to weapons like AR15's will allow a single person (or 2-3 people acting together) to quickly and effectively maim or kill a much, MUCH larger number of people than even the most inept doctor could manage (short of deliberate action, which when found out will hold serious concequences of their own) , in a tiny fraction of the time. 

 

So me, personally?  I'm not saying no more guns.  I'm not even saying no more big guns.  I'm saying there needs to be a very good, very robust system of checks - background check at the very minimum.  Does someone have a wrap sheet for violent crimes (as opposed, say, to a speeding ticket), do they have a history of mental health issues, have they got a bunch of massive red flags such as multiple restraining orders, threats of violence etc etc)?  Then maaaaybe don't give them access to weapons right now.  Not even forever - allow for a re-review every so many years.  People change, after all.  People that were genuine little bastards and problem children in their late teens and early 20's can turn their lives around in just a few years.  

But for the same reason that some people aren't legally allowed to drive, some people have their kids taken away from them, someone may be denied entry into the Armed Forces (ie: on mental health grounds) - they may not (through no fault of their own - whacky brain chemistry be whacky, in the case of mental health issues) be the kind of people who can own these types of weapons and be expected to keep and use them in a safe manner and not become a risk to large numbers of people at a given time. 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

13 hours ago, Sonea said:

With all due respect, I do not see anything related to a straw man argument in my post. Rather than just "declare" something a strawman, please actually take the time to properly explain why you think something should be considered as such.

I’m guessing here, but I think JG’s comment was sarcasm, because many posts from anti-gun people here (I think Jim did it about three times in one day) immediately go to “STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!” if anyone tries to compare shootings to any other medium of death in the US.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 hours ago, Sonea said:

I agree with some of what you are saying but not all.

 

I'll start with what I disagree with:

 

1. Assault rifles (which are rifles that use an intermediate cartridge and are select fire) are controlled by the NFA. They are extremely expensive and rare and have not been used in a crime that I'm aware in decades.

 

2. Machine gun ownership is also tied to the NFA and rare. They also are not used in crime. 

 

3. There is no such thing as a semi-machine gun. I think you mean submachine?

 

4. Assault Weapon is somewhat meaningless as a term. It means something different in Mass. than in California or at the Federal level. It isn't a technical term, its a political term.

 

Now I do agree that since the majority  of these attacks are perpetrated by young men, then scrutiny of this group needs to be greater. 

 

 

I really appreciate the level of logic and uncommon sense you bring to this forum.  Thank you.

 

4. To me, ANY weapon used against another human is an assault weapon.  Because it is used to (wait for it) ASSAULT someone.  A black, scary-looking AR-15 is not in and of itself an assault weapon any more than a green or camo one, or a shotgun, or a 10-22 or other gun.  

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

12 hours ago, Sonea said:

I agree with some of what you are saying but not all.

 

I'll start with what I disagree with:

 

1. Assault rifles (which are rifles that use an intermediate cartridge and are select fire) are controlled by the NFA. They are extremely expensive and rare and have not been used in a crime that I'm aware in decades.

 

2. Machine gun ownership is also tied to the NFA and rare. They also are not used in crime. 

 

3. There is no such thing as a semi-machine gun. I think you mean submachine?

 

4. Assault Weapon is somewhat meaningless as a term. It means something different in Mass. than in California or at the Federal level. It isn't a technical term, its a political term.

 

Now I do agree that since the majority  of these attacks are perpetrated by young men, then scrutiny of this group needs to be greater. 

 

 

I played with the terms on purpose. A semi-automatic weapon is very similar to a machine gun, that's why I called it a semi-machine gun.

There is no reason to own an AR-15 for self-defense, that's all.

Wanna have fun shooting it? Go to a range and shoot it there, but can't walk out of there with it.