Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Then explain what you mean.

a reply to: Aazadan

Some of us can, yes.

But why should we? Why do I have to make allowances for folks who are where they don't belong?

If someone has come into my house w/o invitation, bent upon stealing from me, so long as he/she doesn't set one step towards me, I'll let them walk out the door.

One step wrong, and he'll leave in a coroners bag. I have little need to be kinder and gentler towards folks out to harm me or mine.

The only grace I'll give is the one I stated above. In my home uninvited, you've taken a huge risk. My garage, my yard? I'll warn you off. But the closer to my home you get, the less likely it is I'll be merciful.

If they're in my house, they've already ignored the locks. The dog. They're up to no good. I feel no great sense of urgency to be other than prepared to do harm to them.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krakatoa

Then explain what you mean.

OK, I will ask it AGAIN.

Was that school listed as a "gun free zone"?

That is all I am asking you to answer.

a reply to: seagull

Could you protect your home with rubber bullets and bean bag rounds?

What if the government strictly controlled ammunition? 1 clip (or less) of lethal ammo per weapon you can prove you own (along with some exemptions for hunting), with replacement ammo only offered when exchanged due to age, obvious defect, or having had to use some of it. But then open up sales of less lethal alternatives for use when just shooting cans, going to gun ranges, or as additional bullets?

This would maintain ones ability to use guns for their intended purpose, but also make it much harder for mass shootings to take place.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
OK, I will ask it AGAIN.

Was that school listed as a "gun free zone"?

That is all I am asking you to answer.

And as I've said for the third time now, I don't know. Why don't you tell me?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krakatoa
OK, I will ask it AGAIN.

Was that school listed as a "gun free zone"?

That is all I am asking you to answer.

And as I've said for the third time now, I don't know. Why don't you tell me?

And you answered it. I want nothing more. Why do you automatically assume that I do?

The problem with making "more law/laws" is that a "law" doesn't do anything but make a new/more "criminals" or make a new "crime".
I know, the libs here are thinking,.."but it's a/the law". "How can that be bad"?
It is already against the "law" to murder people. What "greater" "law" is needed? How does it matter with which, the deed was done?

But America was founded on rebellion of the/a "law". And rightfully so! It was the confiscation of "arms", that caused "the shot heard around the world". ..

I will say and I agree, murder must stop! But murder is already "illegal", and not "lawful".

When the wolf attacks. You must be willing to shove your fist down it's throat, deal with the fact, you will bleed. Then shove your fist deeper until you gag that s.o.b. to death or pull it's guts out!

I agree with you OP. "Massacres" need to stop!
I'd highly suggest to not set yourself up, to be massacred.

a reply to: Aazadan

Sure. Then the guy, who may or may not be hopped up on something, gets up and keeps coming.

Nope. If I'm at the point where I'm feeling threatened enough to shoot someone, I'm threatened enough to put him down hard.

Or the coyote gets into my chicken coop. Don't have one now, but have had in the past, and will again. Coyotes can be dangerous, rubber bullets/bean bag rounds have no place there, either.

Not that they don't have a place, mind you. But it won't be in my Smith and Wesson, nor in my shotgun.

Your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that.

But if it comes down to a choice between someone who has already ignored the locks, and the dog (and to get into my home, he'd have had to do something to the dog, as well.), and come in anyway, or my family? Currently, it's my brother in law, who's partially disabled, my sister, the same, and another sister who is not as spry as she once was. A young(er) burglar type would find them rather easy pickings, I'm afraid, without their having immediate access to a firearm--which they do.

I'm mean enough, and still spry enough, that I can still deal with a solo burglar type. I've been there, done that, as they say. But multiple burglars, let's just say, I'd rather not...

But why should I have to, when a gun makes it much safer for me to deal with a situation? The burglar type, I couldn't care less about, he's made his choice when he ignored the clear warnings to stay away, and out of my house.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Aazadan

Sure. Then the guy, who may or may not be hopped up on something, gets up and keeps coming.

Nope. If I'm at the point where I'm feeling threatened enough to shoot someone, I'm threatened enough to put him down hard.

Or the coyote gets into my chicken coop. Don't have one now, but have had in the past, and will again. Coyotes can be dangerous, rubber bullets/bean bag rounds have no place there, either.

Not that they don't have a place, mind you. But it won't be in my Smith and Wesson, nor in my shotgun.

Your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that.

But if it comes down to a choice between someone who has already ignored the locks, and the dog (and to get into my home, he'd have had to do something to the dog, as well.), and come in anyway, or my family? Currently, it's my brother in law, who's partially disabled, my sister, the same, and another sister who is not as spry as she once was. A young(er) burglar type would find them rather easy pickings, I'm afraid, without their having immediate access to a firearm--which they do.

I'm mean enough, and still spry enough, that I can still deal with a solo burglar type. I've been there, done that, as they say. But multiple burglars, let's just say, I'd rather not...

But why should I have to, when a gun makes it much safer for me to deal with a situation? The burglar type, I couldn't care less about, he's made his choice when he ignored the clear warnings to stay away, and out of my house.

This ^^ Is why it should be a personal option. No blanket ban will ever resolve all scenarios. Never. And if someone does think that, you are living in a fantasy land. So, go live at Disney World where nobody id ever sad or gets hurt.

Life is a series of risk assessments and adult decisions. Perhaps we should focus on teaching children that valuable life lesson and not that they get a trophy for breathing because they are special. Then, when the learn to deal with the small failures life WILL throw at them, they are prepared and don't simply snap.

Sheesh... SMH

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Ask yourself:

How many mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones".

If you answered "damn near every one" then you are correct.

Parkland had an armed security guard on the premises.

Who is now under an IA investigation for refusing to act / enter the building where the shooter was at. Unless I am mistaken I thought he resigned today.

a reply to: Aazadan

Couldnt the criminal rob someone elses house?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Couldnt the criminal rob someone elses house?

Presumably, the home owner would have the chance to be present and defend their property.

Even if they did rob someones house, if we use current gun ownership statistics, roughly 1/3 of houses have guns. With ammunition controls (and I'm talking 5-10 lethal rounds per person) it would take several robberies to stockpile enough ammunition for a large attack. Furthermore, if a criminal did go down that road, to get 50 bullets we're talking 4 home invasions where the owners have guns (in addition to their quota), which is 12 home invasions on average. All where victims can report to police that ammunition is missing. Not only would it give advance warning, but it would give the police a chance to catch them before they could act.

You're the police officer, you tell me. When people fire their guns in self defense in a home invasion or assault situation, how many bullets do they typically fire from a handgun, rifle, or shotgun (i assume the numbers are different for all three types)?

a reply to: Aazadan

My point was we need to stop passing laws that only affect people who obey the law. A criminal doesnt care if he is not supposed to be in possession of a firearm or care if his magazine is legal. Those laws only restrict people who obey the law, placing them at a disadvantage.

As for your question about shots it all depends on the person in question and their background, what is occurring at their residence etc etc. I have seen situations where a person thought they only fired 4 rounds when in fact they emptied their mag and I have seen situations where a person thought they fired 9 shots and in reality they only fired 3 rounds.

When you are placed into a situation, like a home invasion, the victim undergoes the fight or flight response. They get an adrenaline dump which affects every part of their body - from audio to visual to blood pressure to sweating etc etc. A persons experiences / training / mindset etc affect the response. The situation can be perceived by the victim as slow motion or in a fast forward manner.

The law enforcement response is you shoot to stop the threat, how ever many rounds that takes is dependent on the suspect, how quickly he goes down and how quickly he stops moving in a manner that is perceived as a threat.

Finally it also depends on the state the person resides in. Last I checked not all states have a castle doctrine law (where if a person illegally enters your residence and you are in fear it automatically meets all requirements for the use of deadly force). Some states are duty to retreat and in some of those states it applies to your residence. If you are in one of those states and someone breaks into your residence it doesnt matter how much you are in fear of your life. If there are avenues of escape you are required to use that option first. If the option to leave exists and you dont you can actually face charges. If there is no safe way to leave the scene then deadly force can be used however be prepared to spend the night in jail pending a review by the PA.

Sorry the answer is not specific however given all the factors involved it cant be exact. This is also why each and every investigation and prosecution is viewed as its own unique situation. Factors that affect one case can be present in another but have no impact.

Violater1,

I completely agree with you. People need to find better things to do with their lives than ruining them by committing mass shootings and school shootings. After Columbine, I had a strange feeling that mass and school shootings were going to become mainstream. It's sad. Get a dog; get right with the Lord; do something that doesn't cause parents to bury their babies because y'all wanna be a dangum jack-wagon idiots. Curbing my language because I will start on a verbal rampage, and you, Violater1, will block me...lmbo.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Sorry the answer is not specific however given all the factors involved it cant be exact. This is also why each and every investigation and prosecution is viewed as its own unique situation. Factors that affect one case can be present in another but have no impact.

That answer is specific enough. If people were limited to 10 rounds per gun (or less if it holds less), based on your description, that would be sufficient for home defense. Mass shooters need far more than 10 bullets to do what they do.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Sorry the answer is not specific however given all the factors involved it cant be exact. This is also why each and every investigation and prosecution is viewed as its own unique situation. Factors that affect one case can be present in another but have no impact.

That answer is specific enough. If people were limited to 10 rounds per gun (or less if it holds less), based on your description, that would be sufficient for home defense. Mass shooters need far more than 10 bullets to do what they do.

And people would make huge money on reloads. ID be making boxes for 200.00 . You cant stop people from getting ammunition. Theres to much out there and people can make more in there garage. Second if someone wanted more then 10 rounds by your plan buy 3 guns.

All this would do is hurt people I go to ranges every couple of months I find the time to go to a range and can go through 1000 rounds. Firing off 10 wouldn't be worth getting out the car.

originally posted by: dragonridr
All this would do is hurt people I go to ranges every couple of months I find the time to go to a range and can go through 1000 rounds. Firing off 10 wouldn't be worth getting out the car.

No. You get 10 ever. Only replaced in event of theft, damage, or use for self defense.

If you want to fire off ammunition at a gun range, you can use rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and so on.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Sorry the answer is not specific however given all the factors involved it cant be exact. This is also why each and every investigation and prosecution is viewed as its own unique situation. Factors that affect one case can be present in another but have no impact.

That answer is specific enough. If people were limited to 10 rounds per gun (or less if it holds less), based on your description, that would be sufficient for home defense. Mass shooters need far more than 10 bullets to do what they do.

Since you're psychic, and can predict with stunning accuracy how many bullets someone needs in a gunfight, can I have this Saturday's Powerball numbers?

a reply to: Aazadan


That is silly. Crowd control rounds only work out of shotguns.

Furthermore, I need much more than 10 rounds. 1) Nobody has 100% accuracy, 2) I could be facing 11+ attackers, 3) no projectile that exists is capable of killing 100% of the time - especially not puny 55gr 5.56 rounds. These rely exclusively on "fragmentation" to achieve effective terminal results (which isn't easy to achieve, especially with a supressed short barreled rifle like mine)

you don't know, is the point.

Your idea falls apart because reloading is quite easy and the supplies are ubiquitous. Even the raw material can be made/scavenged by a person with even cursory knowledge (ie: melting lead weights from vehicles to cast projectiles)

Regardless, you have no business/right to dictate what I choose to deploy for my own protection. It is my right, and my exclusive decision when determining my own defensive posture/risk based analysis. None of us owe you or anyone else an explanation. That said, your ideas are full of logical holes and wishful thinking.

The only possible hope legislation wise is strengthening background checks, and possibly banning things like bumpstocks (which is worthless, because a rubberband/beltloop do just as well). You dreams of restrictive bans or confiscation or AWB are simply unrealistic.

Too many of us would absolutely refuse to comply, knowing full well what gun bans/confiscations universally lead to. I don't think you'd like having millions of armed "criminals" who are willing to defend their Constitutional rights to the grave. Then what are you going to do? Send people with guns to take our guns? Good luck with that. Anything even remotely close to this course of action assuredly starts Civil War 2. And I personally wouldn't want to be on wrong side of history if such a monumentally stupid law were ever passed. Self-preservation is a virtue.

a reply to: dragonridr


Absolutely DR, there'd be massive profits to make all-the-while knowing you're subverting an unconstitutional "authority" that has absolutely zero moral imperative to make any such demands (or any demands period)

At my age, there is nothing they could do to me that would make it not worthwhile. I'd be mass-producing with my own reloading bench and giving them away for free.