Firearms are for sporting and hunting

[fuelair]

Who or what confers the legitimacy firearms for armed revolt?

The NRA of course!!!

 

[Polaris]

That would work if Americans were not paying a lot for law enforcement. Last I checked we do!!!!! (I assume you meant I rather than It)

Paying for law enforcement is one of the few ways to get Americans to agree to keep taxes where they are. So yeah, we're willing to pay - in some cases we pay dearly.

But anyway, this is getting off the main point of the thread, which I guess is "guns and gun owners are bad and they should feel bad."

 

[Border Reiver]

That would work if Americans were not paying a lot for law enforcement. Last I checked we do!!!!! (I assume you meant I rather than It)

Not when the 2A was written though.

 

[arthwollipot]

Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hiding With Her Children

The man allegedly broke into the house and rummaged around before making his way to the crawl space, where he found the mother and children hiding.

"The perpetrator opens that door, and of course at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman to WSB-TV.

Melinda Herman shot the intruder five times, hitting him in the face and neck. Chapman said she told the man if he moved she would shoot him again, although she had run out of bullets.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

That is an example of firearms being used for self-defence. Was it necessary to use the firearm? Could she not have defended her home and family with a baseball bat instead? Or maybe a better lock on her door? Any other nonlethal method could have been used. There are literally dozens. But no, she had a gun. And when you have a gun, everything looks like a target.

And who, when hearing someone ring the doorbell, immediately goes and hides in the attic? What if it was, say, a travelling salesperson? If they live in an area where every ring on the doorbell was an armed attacker intent on doing them harm, then there are social and economic problems in that neighbourhood far beyond mere gun ownership, and they ought to be addressed first.

Who or what confers the legitimacy of firearms for hunting or sport?

The purpose. Hunting can feed you and your family. Sport can... well... let's not unpack this too far or I'll withdraw my support for the use of firearms in sporting events. I admit the purpose of sport only reluctantly as it is.

But apparently we're getting ahead of ourselves. If we don't even agree that there can be legitimate hunting, or sport, or revolution, then it's far too soon to discuss whether firearms are legitimate for those purposes.

Hunting yes, sport, yes, revolution no. As long as you consider these three very different purposes in the same breath, we can't get anywhere.

If Trump is elected there is at least a small chance of that opens up for sure.

More possibly if Hillary is elected the Trump tools and fools might try one. Hopefully they will not survive en masse.

What a load of utter bollocks. Complete bollocks. People are not going to be starting another Civil War in America in our lifetimes, let alone within the next four years.

 

[fuelair]

Paying for law enforcement is one of the few ways to get Americans to agree to keep taxes where they are. So yeah, we're willing to pay - in some cases we pay dearly.

But anyway, this is getting off the main point of the thread, which I guess is "guns and gun owners are bad and they should feel bad."

I am, I am not and I don't!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

That is an example of firearms being used for self-defence. Was it necessary to use the firearm? Could she not have defended her home and family with a baseball bat instead? Or maybe a better lock on her door? Any other nonlethal method could have been used. There are literally dozens. But no, she had a gun. And when you have a gun, everything looks like a target.

And who, when hearing someone ring the doorbell, immediately goes and hides in the attic? What if it was, say, a travelling salesperson? If they live in an area where every ring on the doorbell was an armed attacker intent on doing them harm, then there are social and economic problems in that neighbourhood far beyond mere gun ownership, and they ought to be addressed first.

The purpose. Hunting can feed you and your family. Sport can... well... let's not unpack this too far or I'll withdraw my support for the use of firearms in sporting events. I admit the purpose of sport only reluctantly as it is.

Hunting yes, sport, yes, revolution no. As long as you consider these three very different purposes in the same breath, we can't get anywhere.

What a load of utter bollocks. Complete bollocks. People are not going to be starting another Civil War in America in our lifetimes, let alone within the next four years.

Relax, remember who you are responding to!!!!! Breathe calmly! I hope you are right but clearly there is nuttery going on in our part of the world, way overload of nuttery!!!!!

 

[Ladewig]

That is an example of firearms being used for self-defence. Was it necessary to use the firearm? Could she not have defended her home and family with a baseball bat instead?

What the hell are you talking about? She felt threatened enough to retreat to the farthest reaches of the house with her kids. I cannot imagine a more useless instrument than a baseball bat when hiding in a crawlspace with children. How in the world would a baseball bat provide any defense at all in that particular situation. I am not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I am seriously responding to the stupid idea that a baseball bat would afford any protection in this situation.

I have absolutely no problem with a home intruder getting shot in the face after he corners the homeowners. If you don't want to get shot in the face, then don't break into a home.

There are hundreds or thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands of examples of unnecessary use of guns. I am a card carrying liberal and I see nothing wrong with the mother's actions.

 

[Giz]

What the hell are you talking about? She felt threatened enough to retreat to the farthest reaches of the house with her kids. I cannot imagine a more useless instrument than a baseball bat when hiding in a crawlspace with children. How in the world would a baseball bat provide any defense at all in that particular situation. I am not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I am seriously responding to the stupid idea that a baseball bat would afford any protection in this situation.

I have absolutely no problem with a home intruder getting shot in the face after he corners the homeowners. If you don't want to get shot in the face, then don't break into a home.

There are hundreds or thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands of examples of unnecessary use of guns. I am a card carrying liberal and I see nothing wrong with the mother's actions.

Yeah. I posted that one as it's a pretty undeniable as justified as it gets shooting.

- Home invader: check
- homeowner retreats as far as possible: check
- homeowner is not in a position to resist physically without using firearm: check
- homeowner is responsible for protecting her children: check

And Arth would rather the woman had submitted herself and her family to the invader's whims, rather than resort to a gun for self defense. Because that is what guns can do to certain peoples ability to think rationally.

 

[Cain]

One of the cool things about guns is that you can use them to kill people.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hiding With Her Children

The man allegedly broke into the house and rummaged around before making his way to the crawl space, where he found the mother and children hiding.

"The perpetrator opens that door, and of course at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman to WSB-TV.

Melinda Herman shot the intruder five times, hitting him in the face and neck. Chapman said she told the man if he moved she would shoot him again, although she had run out of bullets.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

Well, here's the part of the report I find most puzzling and disturbing:

According to Herman and the Walton County Sheriff's Office incident report, Melinda Herman was working at home when a man began to ring the doorbell. She called her husband at work, who told her to gather their 9-year-old twins, a boy and a girl, and go hide. All three of them went to an upstairs crawl space, and Melinda brought along a .38 caliber handgun to the hiding place.

First, I don't know how burglary works in the USA, but here, the burglars don't usually ring the doorbell.

Second, there seems to be a piece of the story missing, between when the doorbell rang and the woman calling her husband on the phone for help. These just don't logically follow together. If I rang on a random doorbell here, it's odds on someone would open the door and look who is there. If they were scared to do that, they would be using a peephole or looking through a nearby window. But immediately calling for help...? That's just weird, or there's a major piece of the story missing.

Third, having retreated to the hiding place, she heard the intruder "rummaging around". How did he get in? Was the door unlocked? Did he break in? That isn't mentioned. Perhaps he didn't break in. And why did he rummage around instead of being a bit quieter? And for how long did he rummage about?

Fourth, why didn't this "burglar"/"invader", on finding that the house was empty and being able to "rummage about", simply take everything he wanted and leave? It was a golden opportunity to empty the place out with no interference from anyone. Turns out he didn't do that. There are no reports of anything stolen from the property. Why did he go looking for the people instead?

Fifth, he opened the door to the crawlspace and was shot in the face and neck. But while doing so, he is heard saying "Please stop shooting!". Clearly he is capitulating. But does she stop? No. Why not? I'll put it down to blind fear at best, but lack of adequate gun control is more likely.

Lastly, have we seen the perpetrator? Yep, he's black and this is Georgia.

Let me suggest an alternate scenario: The guy called at the house for an entirely legitimate reason (was he a political canvasser?), rang the doorbell, heard someone phoning and then gathering the children and running away. He was concerned for them and slowly entered the unlocked house. He tried to find where everyone had gone, opened the crawlspace door to see, and got shot in the face. He begged (the report says he screamed) for them to stop, then tried to get out of the house to safety, only to collapse nearby. Great - a gun turns a potentially embarrassing scenario into a very dangerous one.

 

[Noztradamus]

Well, here's the part of the report I find most puzzling and disturbing:
First, I don't know how burglary works in the USA, but here, the burglars don't usually ring the doorbell.

Second, there seems to be a piece of the story missing, between when the doorbell rang and the woman calling her husband on the phone for help. These just don't logically follow together. If I rang on a random doorbell here, it's odds on someone would open the door and look who is there. If they were scared to do that, they would be using a peephole or looking through a nearby window. But immediately calling for help...? That's just weird, or there's a major piece of the story missing.

Third, having retreated to the hiding place, she heard the intruder "rummaging around". How did he get in? Was the door unlocked? Did he break in? That isn't mentioned. Perhaps he didn't break in. And why did he rummage around instead of being a bit quieter? And for how long did he rummage about?

Fourth, why didn't this "burglar"/"invader", on finding that the house was empty and being able to "rummage about", simply take everything he wanted and leave? It was a golden opportunity to empty the place out with no interference from anyone. Turns out he didn't do that. There are no reports of anything stolen from the property. Why did he go looking for the people instead?

Fifth, he opened the door to the crawlspace and was shot in the face and neck. But while doing so, he is heard saying "Please stop shooting!". Clearly he is capitulating. But does she stop? No. Why not? I'll put it down to blind fear at best, but lack of adequate gun control is more likely.

Lastly, have we seen the perpetrator? Yep, he's black and this is Georgia.

Let me suggest an alternate scenario: The guy called at the house for an entirely legitimate reason (was he a political canvasser?), rang the doorbell, heard someone phoning and then gathering the children and running away. He was concerned for them and slowly entered the unlocked house. He tried to find where everyone had gone, opened the crawlspace door to see, and got shot in the face. He begged (the report says he screamed) for them to stop, then tried to get out of the house to safety, only to collapse nearby. Great - a gun turns a potentially embarrassing scenario into a very dangerous one.

Actually he was an innocent door to door crowbar salesman (really keen to make a sale)


http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/paul-slater-invade-home-get-shot.html

When Melinda looked out the window again, she saw the man coming toward the house with a crowbar in his hand. As Slater used the tool to break into the Herman home, Melinda and the twins hid in a crawlspace closet.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Actually he was an innocent door to door crowbar salesman (really keen to make a sale)
http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/paul-slater-invade-home-get-shot.html

Fair enough. Which is not how ABC reported it, having left out a lot of that information. And "Jim Fisher's True Crime" story you quoted reads just like very bad amateur crime stories should too.

 

[TJM]

First, I don't know how burglary works in the USA, but here, the burglars don't usually ring the doorbell.

See "doorbell burglar".

Fairly common around these parts. (San Francisco Bay Area)

 

[Ladewig]

Well, here's the part of the report I find most puzzling and disturbing:
First, I don't know how burglary works in the USA, but here, the burglars don't usually ring the doorbell.

Sometimes burglars ring the doorbell to see if anyone is home.

Lastly, have we seen the perpetrator? Yep, he's black and this is Georgia.

Let me suggest an alternate scenario: The guy called at the house for an entirely legitimate reason (was he a political canvasser?), rang the doorbell, heard someone phoning and then gathering the children and running away. He was concerned for them and slowly entered the unlocked house. He tried to find where everyone had gone, opened the crawlspace door to see, and got shot in the face. He begged (the report says he screamed) for them to stop, then tried to get out of the house to safety, only to collapse nearby. Great - a gun turns a potentially embarrassing scenario into a very dangerous one.

I am trying very, very hard to imagine a situation in which I had a legitimate reason for ringing a doorbell (and the homeowner wasn't expecting me) and when I got no response I would walk into the house. I cannot. And the idea that if I heard someone rounding up the children and moving away from the door then I would go inside to find out what was happening? It is beyond unfathomable to me. Why would any rational person say, " I know there are people in the house but they are not answering the door, therefore I should enter the house."?

I am trying to understand your point of view but I am lost. Perhaps there is some aspect that I am missing. Why would someone enter a stranger's house uninvited?

 

[arthwollipot]

And Arth would rather the woman had submitted herself and her family to the invader's whims, rather than resort to a gun for self defense.

See, this is why I really should stop saying anything. When people so blatantly and obviously misrepresent my views and think that they know what I would rather better than I do, I actually get really *********** angry.

You know nothing about me or what I think or believe. You lie about me for your own political and ideological purposes. Knock it the **** off.

 

[arthwollipot]

What the hell are you talking about? She felt threatened enough to retreat to the farthest reaches of the house with her kids. I cannot imagine a more useless instrument than a baseball bat when hiding in a crawlspace with children. How in the world would a baseball bat provide any defense at all in that particular situation. I am not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I am seriously responding to the stupid idea that a baseball bat would afford any protection in this situation.

Oh duh. Please use a modicum of imagination. Of course I would not have recommended that she retreat to a crawlspace, which is a place where it is more or less impossible to perform any kind of nonlethal defensive action.

In fact my recommendations would have begun well before the dude ever rang the doorbell.

 

[Noztradamus]

Oh duh. Please use a modicum of imagination. Of course I would not have recommended that she retreat to a crawlspace, which is a place where it is more or less impossible to perform any kind of nonlethal defensive action.

In fact my recommendations would have begun well before the dude ever rang the doorbell.

And what would those recommendations be? Razorwire? Electric fence? Claymore mines? Take away the Welcome Mat?

 

[fuelair]

Sometimes burglars ring the doorbell to see if anyone is home.



I am trying very, very hard to imagine a situation in which I had a legitimate reason for ringing a doorbell (and the homeowner wasn't expecting me) and when I got no response I would walk into the house. I cannot. And the idea that if I heard someone rounding up the children and moving away from the door then I would go inside to find out what was happening? It is beyond unfathomable to me. Why would any rational person say, " I know there are people in the house but they are not answering the door, therefore I should enter the house."?

I am trying to understand your point of view but I am lost. Perhaps there is some aspect that I am missing. Why would someone enter a stranger's house uninvited?

To help you understand the pleasure of wearing special magic underwear and dancing with the angel Moron!!!

 

[fuelair]

And what would those recommendations be? Razorwire? Electric fence? Claymore mines? Take away the Welcome Mat?

By me, the Claymore is my defensive starter of choice!!!!!

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well I say it's better to be hurt by someone you know, accidentally, than by a stranger, on purpose.