Guns Used.....cont

[Jason]

I've done a bit of B&E in my day, it's fucking easy. Windows are almost always your best bet - all you need is a large flat screwdriver (the horizontal sliding pane type are the easiest) to pop em open.

[Gallstones]

I have been thinking about what I feel when I am holding one of my handguns.
I paid close attention.
It isn't power.

Taking out a handgun, clearing it, practicing--the feelings are concentration, meditative, competence and confidence.
But not power.

Buying a new one and showing it off--the excitement of "A new toy!"

When I punch a bag I don't feel power either.
Anger usually.
And satisfaction.

I'll give Blind groper one deference, holding a handgun feels different from a rifle.
More like a relationship. An extension of my body, a part of me.
Rifles are heavy, a weight that pulls down and has to be supported.
Not a part of me.

[Gallstones]

[Jason]

I found Seth's long lost Asian brother:

[Seth]

Seth

I said home invasions are rare.

They're not that rare, and the number is increasing.

They happen, just as meteorites fall from the sky from time to time.

And dozens or hundreds of meteorites fall from the sky every single day, you just don't see them or hear about them. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

They get lots of publicity when they happen because they are rare.

Maybe they do in that backwater utopia you live in, but here, especially in the big cities, they happen often enough that they may get a mention in the crime section of the local paper or if they are particularly heinous, might make for an inside article. They are common enough here that security companies and people who build security doors use them as selling points.

This means you can find anecdotes if you want to, and of course they happened. But they are still rare.

You have no idea whether they are rare or not in the US, for all the reasons previously mentioned. And it doesn't matter how rare they are, when it happens to YOU you're going to be pissing your pants wishing you had a handgun as the perps duct-tape you to a chair and force you to watch them rape and murder your wife and children.

Again you go back to the bullshit statistical arguments that I've already explained are unworthy of regard. No matter how rare home invasions are each and every individual person on this planet has the unalienable and absolute right to be armed for effective self defense should such a thing happen to them. It's up to them to judge how likely or unlikely it is that some criminal will target them, and it's up to them to decide how they will arm themselves to respond to that potential threat.

You admit that "home invasions" happen, but you make an ignorant claim that they are "rare" and then make a lame attempt to justify disarming every one of those people to whom a home invasion actually happens because of your ignorant notions about crime victimization. This is the same reasoning error you repeat when you say it's okay for people to be armed with rifles and shotguns for self defense. By doing so you admit that there is a need for people to be armed in self defense. Then you ignorantly make the claim that of the weapons suitable for self defense, handguns are completely ineffective and because some very small number of people use them to commit suicide, everyone should be denied what is actually the best personal defense weapon currently available. THEN, on top of all that unreason and illogic, you cite the number of handgun homicides and completely refuse to acknowledge that some or all of those victims might have survived had they been armed with a handgun.

Your arguments are complete bullshit.

There is a difference between a home invasion and a burglary, even if the burglar enters an occupied home.

Ever been burglarized? Ever wake up to find a stranger with a ski mask standing over you in bed? No? Then shut the fuck up until you know what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.

The burglar will do his best to avoid that error, but of course it happens from time to time.

Unless he's not there to burgle you, but instead is there to rape and murder you. Now, how do you propose to distinguish between the two types of intruders in the middle of the night, coming out of sleep? Are you going to ask "Excuse me sir, are you here to burgle me or are you here to rape and murder me? I'd like to know so I can decide if I need to run to the gun store and buy a gun, and then wait 5 days before picking it up so that, in the latter case, I might have an opportunity to defend myself."

Dumb fuck.

The difference is that a home invasion involves people being held, while a burglary that happens in error when people are at home will involve the burglar avoiding contact with the residents. A burglar is simply after your property and does not want to even see you. A home invader will deliberately threaten the occupants. A totally different event.

Utterly irrelevant, as I illustrate above. Somebody unlawfully enters my house in the middle of the night with the intention of committing ANY crime therein, and causes a reasonable belief in me that he is about to use ANY degree of force whatsoever, no matter how slight against ANY occupant of the house and I'm going to put two in his chest and one in his head with my handgun without any further inquiry.

Nor do hand guns alter that.

Idiotic claim.

We have no hand guns in NZ, and home invasions are very rare here.

False dilemma. Failure in cause and effect reasoning. Home invasions happen in NZ. Nobody in NZ has handguns to defend themselves with (and neither do they have shotguns or rifles if I'm not mistaken because of the mandatory "safe storage" laws that prohibit keeping a loaded gun in the house where it's handy and available for self defense...that's true in the UK, and I presume in NZ as well). Regardless of how rare they may be in NZ, they happen, and when they happen, the home occupants are needlessly and wrongfully victimized by people of your ilk and your government because they have been denied their right to be effectively armed against such criminality. That is unconscionable, evil, despotic, disrespectful, arrogant, uncaring, dismissive and a whole bunch of other negative adjectives of you, your ilk, and your government.

You are morally and ethically responsible for each and every person in NZ who is killed, maimed or victimized by a criminal, regardless of the circumstances, who might have been able to defend themselves if they had been lawfully able to carry effective tools of self defense. You dumb motherfuckers (and the ones in the UK) won't even let potential victims carry OC spray cannisters. You jackassed idiots utterly disarm every...except the fucking criminals. That is as stupid as stupid gets.

The fact that they are rare in the USA is for the same reason.

They're not that rare, and here you go with the bullshit argument again.

The criminals involved prefer to avoid serious trouble, and the police take home invasions very seriously.

How the fuck do YOU know what criminals prefer? Are you a home-invasion criminal? You sound like an apologist for violent criminals.

In my country, pretty much every home invasion crime is solved, and the criminals involved locked up for a long period.

How lucky for you. You live in a backwater utopia of some 4 million people that is approximately the same size as the State of Colorado, where I live. I live in a vast nation that's 50 or more times as large and has a population of 300 million. You cannot equate your experience, or the behavior of your criminals, with anything in the United States.

They are caught because the police put in a big effort.

Interestingly, they get caught here too quite often, but they still do it on a regular basis.

Burglaries are common, but burglars will avoid people.

Rapists don't. What about them?

Police do not try very hard to solve burglaries, and relatively few burglars are ever caught by the police, making burglary a much more attractive option than home invasion for criminals.

Depends on why the home invaders are invading the home. Sometimes they are doing so for the purposes of robbery, particularly of drugs. Other times they are doing so to terrorize, rape, kill and THEN steal stuff. Sometimes a home is invaded because some psychopath wants to enjoy victimizing people. There are many reasons for a "home invasion" but it's irrelevant to the victim WHY someone has invaded their home and taken them captive. All that matters is whether they are adequately armed to resist such attacks because THAT IS THEIR IRREFUTABLE, UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

Your arguments are complete horseshit because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Your ignorance is becoming legendary. So much so that I'm beginning to think you're a Poe.

[Seth]

That man should have his all his firearms confiscated for a period of no less than 90 days, and receive a temporary restriction in being in possession of any firearm until he completes an intensive 4 week state regulated education course and/or pays a hefty fine.. say $2500.

He reacted appropriately for being violently and suddenly attacked. He drew his weapon reasonably believing that his life was in danger of death or serious bodily harm and brandished it, thus disincentivizing the attacker from continuing the attack and causing him to flee, but did not discharge his weapon in that crowd. Perfect response, perfectly legal, which is why he's not being charged.

[Blind groper]

Cormac

You try popping my sliding doors off their runners! Can't be done. They are designed to make that impossible. The thing about my home is that it is just 4 years old. Modern design.

Certainly, older and poorly designed homes are difficult to make secure. But your statement was that it could not be done legally. Wrong. It can be done so well that not one burglar in 1,000 can get in. All legal. If you are retrofitting an old home with modern security systems, it will cost. If you are building a new home, making it secure will add relatively little to the cost of building.

However, even with an old home, at relatively modest cost you can make it so that most burglars will not want to take the risk of breaking in. Something as simple as motion sensors setting off bright lights is enough to make most burglars think twice. Add a proper alarm and deadbolts on all doors and windows, and very few burglars will bother.

[Seth]

Dude punched someone else in the face, not the guy with the gun.

Wrong. Read it again.

Besides, what's in a punch? I've known people to call a closed palm slap a punch.

Doesn't matter.

From the description all some hero had to do was step in and say chill out bud and get back to the end of the line, not recklessly brandish a gun in a crowd. What if he accidentally fired? What if he intentionally fired? How many innocents would have been injured. Morons like that need to be educated on when and where it's appropriate to haul iron.

But he didn't, which is why he's not being charged. In other words, he use his lawfully carried handgun to stop a crime in progress without shooting anyone. Well done. If he'd fired his weapon he would likely be facing charges, depending on his perception of the attack, and whether he shot the assailant or a bystander. But he didn't. He did what was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances and the attacker fled with no additional harm.

That's why he's not being charged. The police know more about this sort of stuff than you do.

[Seth]

Cormac

You try popping my sliding doors off their runners! Can't be done. They are designed to make that impossible. The thing about my home is that it is just 4 years old. Modern design.

Certainly, older and poorly designed homes are difficult to make secure. But your statement was that it could not be done legally. Wrong. It can be done so well that not one burglar in 1,000 can get in. All legal. If you are retrofitting an old home with modern security systems, it will cost. If you are building a new home, making it secure will add relatively little to the cost of building.

However, even with an old home, at relatively modest cost you can make it so that most burglars will not want to take the risk of breaking in. Something as simple as motion sensors setting off bright lights is enough to make most burglars think twice. Add a proper alarm and deadbolts on all doors and windows, and very few burglars will bother.

Bullshit argument. Of course it's prudent to secure your home, but it's also prudent, and lawful, to arm yourself against the eventuality that the invader WILL NOT be deterred by all your security precautions.

Besides, violent criminal attacks don't just happen in the home, or had that salient fact escaped you...again.

Derp!

[Blind groper]

perfectly legal, which is why he's not being charged.

Perhaps so, but still not a good response. I have been in a similar situation with no gun, and driven off the attacker. On that occasion, I was not the victim. This guy was attacking a woman, who was possibly his wife. He was also quite drunk. I intervened, and he turned on me. I did not even strike back, but simply fended off his punches. While I did that, the woman disappeared. The guy gave up after a minute or so and ran off also. No guns required.

[Seth]

A can of pepper spray would have taken care of the punch happy asshole, and no one permanently hurt. He would then think twice before he tried that act again.

Oh, wait, guess what's illegal in the UK...and NZ.

But I agree, carrying a can of pepper spray is a good idea if you don't carry a gun. If you carry a gun, it's much more effective as a deterrent even when not discharged, as we see.

[Seth]

perfectly legal, which is why he's not being charged.

Perhaps so, but still not a good response. I have been in a similar situation with no gun, and driven off the attacker. On that occasion, I was not the victim. This guy was attacking a woman, who was possibly his wife. He was also quite drunk. I intervened, and he turned on me. I did not even strike back, but simply fended off his punches. While I did that, the woman disappeared. The guy gave up after a minute or so and ran off also. No guns required.

Whoop de doo for you. You don't get to tell someone else how to defend themselves, Sparky. If the victim had been an 80 year old lady in a dark parking lot, what then?

[Jason]

That's why he's not being charged. The police know more about this sort of stuff than you do.

Wrong. He's not being charged because this is a point where the gun laws in the US are ass backwards. In Canada we have laws concerning what is considered proportionate response. If someone comes at me barefisted and I pull a gun on him I can, and probably will, be charged and rightly so. This 'in potential danger' or 'in fear of your life' is so much bullshit - it gives every moron a license to shoot someone so long as their lawyer can argue the point successfully. It gives rise to unnecessary and potentially dangerous situations, such as the one in the article (fool pulling a gun in a crowd because he got touched up), and dangerously escalates them.

So, no, he wasn't right. He was within a ass backwards law - that doesn't make him right.

[Jason]

perfectly legal, which is why he's not being charged.

Perhaps so, but still not a good response. I have been in a similar situation with no gun, and driven off the attacker. On that occasion, I was not the victim. This guy was attacking a woman, who was possibly his wife. He was also quite drunk. I intervened, and he turned on me. I did not even strike back, but simply fended off his punches. While I did that, the woman disappeared. The guy gave up after a minute or so and ran off also. No guns required.

Whoop de doo for you. You don't get to tell someone else how to defend themselves, Sparky. If the victim had been an 80 year old lady in a dark parking lot, what then?

Don't move the goalposts Seth. That wasn't the situation. I don't get to tell people how to defend themselves? Perhaps not, but the law does and your laws are wrong on several points.

[Seth]

FBM

You did better than me. I could not find such statistics.

I know that, here in NZ, where hand guns are not held by householders, home invasions in which someone is threatened or harmed, are sufficiently rare that each and every one of them makes national newspaper headlines. I did not have the data to show if they were more common or less in the USA. Your figures would indicate they are more common, which kinda throws intense suspicion on the suggestion that guns are a deterrent.

The figure of 65% of violent offenders known to their victims ties in with what I said earlier about murders in the home. It also suggests that the majority of home invasions were not some random crime, but a vendetta type action by a person who knew their victim and had a grudge.

As I said before, most murders, and most acts of violence, are carried out by 'friends', relatives, spouses, or acquaintances.

You really are deep in your delusion, aren't you? FBM provides solid numbers of 266,000+ "home invasions" each year where an occupant was actually attacked and injured (and JBTW proof that my statements about UCR reporting was factually accurate) and you still try to weasel out of it.

And it doesn't matter a whit whether the home invaders were known to the victim, the victim still had the right to effective self defense.

Sheesh.