This is why I NEED an AR-15 with 30rd mags

callen

PORTER HEIGHTS, Texas - A Houston firefighter is dead after a woman who opened fire says that firefighter was trying to break into her Montgomery County home.

The woman says she had no idea he was a firefighter, and says she had no idea that the man she heard trying to get inside of her front door was her next-door neighbor.

Detectives thought it was odd that if it was an attempted break-in, there was no evidence of a getaway car. But that's because the man's vehicle was parked in his driveway. Keen was the woman's next door neighbor.

Investigators say earlier on St. Patrick's Day he was at a bar with friends and took a cab ride home. Unfortunately, the 27-year-old husband never made it home.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/woman-shoots-kills-firefighter-trying-to-break-into-her-home/25029960

Sucks to walk up to the wrong house drunk. Visiting freinds one time, walked out to car.....cookie cutter neighborhood and went back to wrong house...walked in...thankfully they weren't armed and shot me.

Cosmo

unsung said:

I think I'm going to take a break from this forum, too much Statism makes me want to puke.

...
Maybe you need to take a break... settle down, if it is going to boil your blood.
...
And i don't know abot the Statism comment. Most of us here distrust the government (the State) at large... but, we know it is the mechanism that is in place in order to make us safe. The Police and Fire Departments are paid by all of us, so they are supposed to treat us all equally. Let's not get side tracked on the police thing... it was used purely as an example.
We HAVE to turn to the state when an overall solution is required. Who else is going to solve this gun issue? Gun Manufacturers and sellers? The NRA? The people? No... Gun makers want to make money selling guns... they will sell directly to Al qaeda if it were up to them. And the people... yeah... there's a solution. You want to buy as many types of gun in any numbers as you choose and I think that's a bad idea. Who's decision counts?
I don't know what type of society you envision without a central government... anarchy like Somalia? What?
All we want is some thing to be done to reduce the risk of some other nut with a high capacity gun, cutting down shoppers at the mall. That's all. We don't know how to do it, but we know whatever is being done and not being done isn't helping.
...
Again... take a break... quit watching t.v. Quit listening to AM Talk Radio... stop scouring the Internet for articles about gun violence. Listen to your iPod, instead. I also think you definately need to move... you make it sound like you live inside of a Grand Theft Auto game. We don't want to hear any news items about you on our local evening news.
Think... Zen...

Cosmo

mattsl1983 said:

I think there is a huge difference in the words need and deserve. That's me personally though I guess. I would say that the op's use of the word need just added some sensationalism to his point, which is what many anti gun groups do. I'm indifferent, it someone thinks they "need" a gun for protection, that's their prerogative. I'm okay with it. If someone feels they don't "need" a gun, I'm okay with that. I am against leaving it to the federal government to implement gun control changes. I think it should be left up to each state. Texas is completely different than Vermont, and so are the ways in which we grow up doing and are around. Yes I know that's a generalization, and some here will try and say I said everyone. But again, common sense. But I can say AR15's are really fun guns to shoot I must say though. But to each their own. There's a really interesting Vice episode where they sent one of their reporters out to a big gathering of gun supporters, and to the reporters surprise, he really enjoyed shooting many of the guns. I do think that any extremism on either side of the issue tends to cause problems and remove common sense. To many assume that if you have an ar15 you are a gun nut, and if you don't think someone should have one then you are completely against guns. But an interesting fact is that more people die in automobile accidents each year in the US than shooting.

...
I agree you you. I think the states should decide on small arms weapons, but we need an overall definition of what small arms weapons are. I mean, you can legally buy a tank if you want... but, you will need to file a ton of federal paperwork if you want the guns operational. We really don't want just any yahoo to be able to buy explosive ordinances at the local Wal-Mart, right?
...
The only thing I disagree with is trying to compare guns to cars.
My guess is that there are more people that own a car, than own a gun.
And I'm also guessing that people who who own both cars and guns, don't use their gun as often as their cars.

Think about it... how many people do you know that owns a car?
How many people do you know own guns?
Is this statement true... "Every person I know that owns a car, also owns a gun"
Next...
How often do all of those people you know that own a car... use that car?
How often do the people you know that own guns, fire those guns?
If everyone that you know that owns a car... also owned a gun... and if everyone fired their guns as often as they use their cars... do you think those gun/car statistics would change?
...
It also works the opposite way.... if number of car owners was equal to the number of gun owners... and the usage of their cars was the same as the usage of their guns... would the number of auto accidents decrease? If they increased their gun usage to equal the amount of time they spend operating their car... would the number of gun death increase?
...
Anyway... you make good points... I just suggest that you may want to drop the cars vs. guns thing. Statistics are great... but, people cannot compare them in order to attain the conclusion they have already decided on. Compare the number of deaths by hand gun vs. rifle... or the death rates between sports cars and SUVs. Those comparisons are valid based on the silarities in the type of data. It's that old addage about comparing Apples an Wombats... they don't equate.

myoung321

I just see excuse after excuse. I can proudly say I have never owned or felt the need to own a gun..... I lived in L.A. for 25 or so years and in a Tornado Alley "Red State" for the last ten.... The more guns mentality obviously doesn't help our society, look at the facts, crime rates, suicide, accidental shootings..etc etc... the facts show owning a gun puts you in higher danger.

In my opinion, anyone that ties SAFETY, FREEDOM~AMERICA to owning a gun is delusional.

I feel much safer walking the streets in Europe than I do in my own US cities,,,, hmmmm those citizens sure seem to be Free

Owning a gun for legal hunting, I have no issues with... even if I wouldn't do it.

goingtoverona

@cosmo, I know we've talked about this before but the cars point is one issue i completely disagree with you on. personally I don't see how you can't compare the two. I look at your last post and what comes to my mind first....is that cosmo is rationalizing the deaths of people killed by cars. I feel like (from your post) that a person killed in a car wreck doesn't start to become important to you until they meet a quota. I feel like you're taking a certain group of people(people killed by guns) and saying that they are more important than everyone else.
for me, at the end of the day, cars are exactly like guns. they are inanimate objects used by people to kill other people. the fact that most are accidents and not by a machine "designed to kill" doesn't change the fact that they're dead. dead is dead yo.
that being said when I hear people say we have to do "whatever it takes" if we "save one life it's worth it" for guns, if you don't have that same attitude for cars, then imo you're reason for being anti gun is because you don't like guns and not because you do like human life so much.
i just don't understand how people who care about human life so much, scoff at the idea of doing whatever it takes to save lives even if it just saves one life, when it has to do with cars.
just to put it in perspective to see how most of you come across to me.....if i came on here and said how i just bought a kickass assault rifle with these money high cap mags and then said oh by the way, tobacco kills, alcohol kills, steak knives kill and cars kill. you guys are callous heartless assholes for not doing whatever it takes to save those lives. anyone wanna go shoot? what would you think about that? would you think i was a hypocrite?

callen

We need transportation, cars. We don't need guns. Cars are getting safer and safer, guns are going in the opposite direction. The car comparison is a red herring. Humans can 't handle the responsibility of guns. More guns more senseless killing. My article above is classic example of human that couldn't handle a gun. Yesterday, close to my house, ex and current boyfriend of chick got into argument, loser went to his truck, came back and shot other dude. This will continue.

oysterjar

callen said:

We need transportation, cars. We don't need guns. Cars are getting safer and safer, guns are going in the opposite direction. The car comparison is a red herring. Humans can 't handle the responsibility of guns. More guns more senseless killing. My article above is classic example of human that couldn't handle a gun. Yesterday, close to my house, ex and current boyfriend of chick got into argument, loser went to his truck, came back and shot other dude. This will continue.

Callen,

The questions I about to ask are not to be an asshole. I am just looking for the other sides opinion. I myself am wondering what can be done to make the U.S. more safe while allowing people to still own guns.

Why do you think that the second amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

jmuscatello

I think Cosmo's point was that it's essentially impossible to compare guns to cars statistically.
Driving a car requires licensing and registration, which I think most of us can agree is appropriate. Not so for firearms?

goingtoverona

@callen‌
for one, we don't need cars. the only thing we "need" is oxygen, water, food, and sleep. cars came about in the early 1900's i think. people survived long long before the advent of the automobile. not only that but the horse and saddle industry was too big to fail imo but that's another topic.
by your post, it feels like your opinion is that the tens of thousands of people killed by cars every year is an acceptable loss so that we can get to work or the store in a short amount of time. it's funny you say people can't handle the responsibility of guns, yet just in the U.S. literally tens of thousands humans dead and countless more animals dead every year. if that isn't people not handling the responsibility of owning a car then i don't know what is.

@jm yeah i see what you mean, i guess the assumption is that if you buy a gun you're keeping it in your house. there is licensing to carry out in public though. a very thorough background check by the fbi, class hours and range time.

JonnyPistachio

I completely agree with Cosmo too. Simply because of the intended uses of each object. A gun is a weapon. A car is transportation. And we do need cars more than we need guns.

Yes, a lot of people die in car accidents every year, but if an intersection is prone to accidents, they might add a stop light. If a highway is prone to accidents, they might reduce the speed limit. With guns, it seems like people just demand that they deserve the right to own the most powerful weapon they want with enormous magazine capacities just because they dont want the government telling them what they can do. Personally, I'd love to drive 120 miles an hour to work everyday. I bet i'd be fine. But I'm glad the laws are there to limits the speed of the other hooligans that would kill everyone on the raod if there were no limits.

The car-gun analogy just doesnt work very well. Too many disconnected variables.

mattsl1983

Also gun violence has gone down in the past 20 years according to a justice report done in 2013.

rgambs

when you drive a car you accept the risk of that action knowingly and willingly. When you go out into public you don't know who is a gun threat, and you don't accept the risk of your own free will. Backing this cars = guns line of thought exposes your desire to defend guns, not to think of things in the terms in which they exist.

mattsl1983

Jmuscattelo, I would ask you, not being a dick here, but will a car still operate if it's not registered or a driver goes to use it without a drivers license? If a car is registered and gets stolen, does it no longer work? I ask because the registering and licensing of guns to me solves nothing. It will just generate a flow of money to the government.

hedonist

On this cars vs guns deal...in the end, it comes down to the responsibility, presence of mind, awareness, not being reckless, drunk, wasted, pissed off...on the part of the user of either - of anything. And if guns can be registered for purposes of accountability, tracking - like with automobiles - why not? Plus, the extra income could do some good (assuming it's routed appropriately and not frittered away).

Aside - I almost got plowed by a truck at an intersection yesterday. I had the right of way and the dude just cruised on through a firm red light...while SMILING.

jmuscatello

I don't think you're being a dick, mattsl1983. I understand that argument, but the way I see it, being able to trace a stolen vehicle via registration is a pretty valuable thing, as is being able to trace ownership of a gun used in a crime, or even to get a gun away from someone whose legal or mental health status has changed and whose gun ownership is now prohibited. And I know some would make the argument that registration and licensing is just a way to impose taxation.... to me, that taxation is worthwhile. Just as I will gladly pay additional taxes on legal marijuana purchases because I think legal regulation is helpful to that industry and public health safety. I know people will say that it's taking away rights/privacy to have to register a gun, I know the NRA has coached it's members that registration is the first step towards confiscation. While I don't dispute anyone's constitutional right to bear arms, I guess I'm saying that gun ownership, in our society today, should require some accountability. The lack of regulation is not working - just my opinion.

callen

mattsl1983 said:

I think there is a huge difference in the words need and deserve. That's me personally though I guess. I would say that the op's use of the word need just added some sensationalism to his point, which is what many anti gun groups do. I'm indifferent, it someone thinks they "need" a gun for protection, that's their prerogative. I'm okay with it. If someone feels they don't "need" a gun, I'm okay with that. I am against leaving it to the federal government to implement gun control changes. I think it should be left up to each state. Texas is completely different than Vermont, and so are the ways in which we grow up doing and are around. Yes I know that's a generalization, and some here will try and say I said everyone. But again, common sense. But I can say AR15's are really fun guns to shoot I must say though. But to each their own. There's a really interesting Vice episode where they sent one of their reporters out to a big gathering of gun supporters, and to the reporters surprise, he really enjoyed shooting many of the guns. I do think that any extremism on either side of the issue tends to cause problems and remove common sense. To many assume that if you have an ar15 you are a gun nut, and if you don't think someone should have one then you are completely against guns. But an interesting fact is that more people die in automobile accidents each year in the US than shooting.

oysterjar said:

callen said:

We need transportation, cars. We don't need guns. Cars are getting safer and safer, guns are going in the opposite direction. The car comparison is a red herring. Humans can 't handle the responsibility of guns. More guns more senseless killing. My article above is classic example of human that couldn't handle a gun. Yesterday, close to my house, ex and current boyfriend of chick got into argument, loser went to his truck, came back and shot other dude. This will continue.

Callen,

The questions I about to ask are not to be an asshole. I am just looking for the other sides opinion. I myself am wondering what can be done to make the U.S. more safe while allowing people to still own guns.

Why do you think that the second amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Oysterjar:

Have read your posts and wouldn’t take offense, plus love Oysters on half shell.

Understand and empathize with framers for adding second amendment. I though don’t regard the constitution as an inflexible document that is infallible and can’t be changed. With that said, I still at this time, support an individual’s right to protect themselves. But see this gun culture of bigger and better firearms to protect themselves from the “Evildoers’” a vicious cycle that will just lead to more and more deaths.

How do we make it safer…don’t believe there is a way. Bad people will pass background checks and even “good” people have emotions that compromise being rational, as what happened to the lady that killed the drunk firefighter. This will happen more and more. Think we have lots of school shootings now…just wait. Home burglaries will continue along with F350 dually’s broken into and guns stolen. Likely the F350 will have a “Obama Suck” bumper sticker and the peace sign made out of a B1 Bomber.

Soon we’ll have open carry so don’t look at that guys girl wrong…or don’t be disrespecting…cause you may get shot.

My rights of being able to safely walk down the street is being infringed by others right to bear arms. Crazy.

unsung

And gun owners are the paranoid ones? Yeah, sure ok.

mattsl1983

From the data I was able to find (I'm at the airport so didn't really dig that deep) I could find that there are an estimated 45 million to 55 million gun owners in the US. According to the FBI there were 8,855 deaths due to fire arms in 2012 (most recent year I could find). I took the average (50 million) owners and rounded the FBI report up to 10,000 deaths for fire arms to make the math easier. That leaves %0.0002 of estimated gun owners that are responsible for the killing of someone else. I would have to say that the overwhelmingly majority of gun owners are indeed responsible. In my opinion, I do not see the 2nd amendment and guns as the issue. I would investigate the why's and break down the deaths to if it was self defense, drug related, mental illness, ect ect. Then I would start addressing those issues instead of just blaming guns as a whole.

mattsl1983

I just don't see the idea of how soon everyone will have a gun and there will be shootings on every block due to random arguments. And also with the Ar15, the gun that anti gun groups seem should be illegal, is a riffle. And if you look at the link below (from the FBI website) you can see that there were more deaths from knives, or blunt objects, or personal weapons than riffles (including the ar15) in 2012. I was actually a bit surprised at that, and I wish the 2013 stats were up.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

callen

unsung said:

And gun owners are the paranoid ones? Yeah, sure ok.

Touché.