• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"High capacity magainze ban" - a PSA for who they harm

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If I owned a gun and there were burglars in my house, I'd stay in the bedroom with my wife, shut and lock the door, and train the gun on the door, then have my wife call 9/11. It's really easy to take down targets coming through a doorway at 6-8 feet. More than likely they don't even come to the bedroom, but rather they leave when they realize there is someone awake in the house. 98% of home invasions are for the purpose of theft. I'm not taking any risks to protect my stuff. My stuff is insured. The safest defense is always to be somewhere with one point of ingress. I don't get all this cowboy crap.
 
2timer said:
The match up "will be" 1 on 1? So you can see into the future now, too? 😀

If you can't beat back a thief on your home turf with a shotgun and a premium security system, that tells me a) you are a titanic idiot, or b) you have no idea how to use a gun.
Click to expand...

You're right, it could very well be two, three, or four on one.

So in your book, against a single armed criminal:

1. Civilians get equal or inferior weaponry to said criminal.

2. Cops get to lock down several city blocks, armored cars, several squad-mates, body armor, backup and centralized coordination.
 
Last edited:
schneiderguy said:
There was a small incident in Boston that you may have heard about, where thousands of police officers were pitted against one person. They evidently felt the need for "high capacity" magazines even though they outnumbered him at least 1000:1.

Why can't I have high capacity magazines when the match up, at best, will be 1:1?
Click to expand...

Because unless you're Tony Montana, armed groups of 3-4 men aren't going to be storming your home. Odds are that home intruders will be...dumb teenagers, or lone morons, or even drunken fools.
 
irishScott said:
You're right, it could very well be two, three, or four on one.

So in your book, against a single armed criminal:

1. Civilians get equal or inferior weaponry to said criminal.

2. Cops get to lock down several city blocks, armored cars, several squad-mates, body armor, backup and centralized coordination.
Click to expand...

What are the odds of you being the victim of a multi-perp home invasion with the perps packing heat? Maybe it's marginal in a high crime area. However, the vast majority of home invasions are done during the day, when people are at work, with no weapon, and with the sole purpose of theft. Maybe if you're a gang banger or drug dealer you have to worry about it.

Perhaps I'd get a gun if I lived in a high crime area. I dunno. You can always take precautions to guard against extremely remote risks. There are lots of extremely remote risks in life.
 
irishScott said:
You're right, it could very well be two, three, or four on one.

So in your book, against a single armed criminal.

1. Civilians get equal or inferior weaponry to said criminal.

2. Cops get to lock down several city blocks, armored cars, several squad-mates, body armor, backup and centralized coordination.
Click to expand...

Does it make sense that civilians who've never actually faced imminent danger should be carrying the same weapons as law enforcement, who face real, deadly threats?
 
desura said:
Because unless you're Tony Montana, armed groups of 3-4 men aren't going to be storming your home. Odds are that home intruders will be...dumb teenagers, or lone morons, or even drunken fools.
Click to expand...

I had a friend who was tied up in his apartment and robbed at Knifepoint, in freaking Charlottesville Virginia. In my area, about twice a year there's something in the local news about armed suspects breaking down someone's door, one time they had the wrong door (they were off by one floor in the apartment complex).

Yes, the odds are low, but not negligible.
 
desura said:
Because unless you're Tony Montana, armed groups of 3-4 men aren't going to be storming your home. Odds are that home intruders will be...dumb teenagers, or lone morons, or even drunken fools.
Click to expand...

LOLLL. Tony Montana, that's GOOD. I'll have to remember that one!
 
2timer said:
Does it make sense that civilians who've never actually faced imminent danger should be carrying the same weapons as law enforcement, who face real, deadly threats?
Click to expand...

So your criteria for owning the same guns as law enforcement is facing a deadly threat at least once without said weapons? I start off at a 5-shot shotgun and if I get robbed and face it down I can upgrade to 8? 😀 What's the achievement where I get to paint it black?
 
irishScott said:
So your criteria for owning the same guns as law enforcement is facing a deadly threat at least once without said weapons? I start off at a 5-shot shotgun and if I get robbed and face it down I can upgrade to 8? 😀 What's the achievement where I get to paint it black?
Click to expand...

No, I'd say that there's a whole lot of people who purchase assault type rifles, unnecessarily. They are heavily armed without reason.

Look at Nancy Lanza, did she ever use her assault rifles to defend herself? :colbert:
 
irishScott said:
I had a friend who was tied up in his apartment and robbed at Knifepoint, in freaking Charlottesville Virginia. In my area, about twice a year there's something in the local news about armed suspects breaking down someone's door, one time they had the wrong door (they were off by one floor in the apartment complex).

Yes, the odds are low, but not negligible.
Click to expand...

If someone is armed and coming to kill you and/or your family, it's either personal or else you're a gangster/drug dealer. Either way you would know in advance that you're at risk and prepare accordingly. For everyone else, the risk is maybe the rare freak serial killer who is working alone and not with a firearm. Or maybe your wrong door scenario above.

I think if you buy guns just because you like them, that's fine.
 
2timer said:
No, I'd say that there's a whole lot of people who purchase assault type rifles, unnecessarily. They are heavily armed without reason.

Look at Nancy Lanza, did she ever use her assault rifles to defend herself? :colbert:
Click to expand...

She still had decades left of life to own those rifles. Who are you to say she wouldn't have? In any case, why are people allowed to own red cars? There's actually legit studies showing people who own red cars are more likely to speed and cause accidents, so why let people own them? They're not getting any use out of the color red.

In any case, the ownership of guns, of any variety, is hardly the cause of gun crime. But apparently liberals have given up on going after the source and prefer to uselessly attack the symptom. There is sensible gun regulation to be had, I've just yet to hear any proposed. Only fear-mongering, demonisation, and feel-good bullshit that only feels good to people who know nothing about guns.

Talking to 9/10 liberals about gun control is like talking to a creationist about evolution.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
If someone is armed and coming to kill you and/or your family, it's either personal or else you're a gangster/drug dealer. Either way you would know in advance that you're at risk and prepare accordingly. For everyone else, the risk is maybe the rare freak serial killer who is working alone and not with a firearm. Or maybe your wrong door scenario above.

I think if you buy guns just because you like them, that's fine.
Click to expand...

This. This x1000, is exactly why the gun lobby's propaganda is ludicrous
 
irishScott said:
She still had decades left of life to own those rifles. Who are you to say she wouldn't have? In any case, why are people allowed to own red cars? There's actually legit studies showing people who own red cars are more likely to speed and cause accidents, so why let people own them? They're not getting any use out of the color red.

In any case, the ownership of guns, of any variety, is hardly the cause of gun crime. But apparently liberals have given up on going after the source and prefer to uselessly attack the symptom. There is sensible gun regulation to be had, I've just yet to hear any proposed. Only fear-mongering, demonisation, and feel-good bullshit that only feels good to people who know nothing about guns.

Talking to 9/10 liberals about gun control is like talking to a creationist about evolution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are definitely right. Hard to argue with that logic.
 
2timer said:
Yeah, you are definitely right. Hard to argue with that logic.
Click to expand...

I've tried lengthier arguments and brought in actual studies and numbers many times. I could write several pages on the subject right now. It's convinced a few people who were on the fence, but anyone further left than some arbitrary point on the political spectrum is too politically and emotionally bonded with the issue.

So instead of expending hours trying to convince someone who wouldn't think gun ownership was a good idea if 4 armed criminals broke into their house and raped/executed their family in front of them, I try to be succinct.

I'm dead serious though. Most liberals are about as rational and informed about gun control as creationists are about evolution. They're the exact same thing, rejection of reality in favor of comforting faith and philosophy. If I ever make a billion dollars and get supremely bored, I might actually commission a study. I'll quiz creationists on verifiable facts about evolution, and I'll quiz gun control advocates on verifiable facts about guns and gun control. I have a feeling test scores will be in the same ball park.
 
OP assumes that you need to kill every single intruder, which is not even close to true.

We're talking about self defense here, not mass murder. Scaring off or disabling the intruders is preferable to killing them all.
 
desura said:
Because unless you're Tony Montana, armed groups of 3-4 men aren't going to be storming your home. Odds are that home intruders will be...dumb teenagers, or lone morons, or even drunken fools.
Click to expand...

Odds are they will be armed. People don't break into a home without being armed. Why would a criminal break into a home, knowing full well they could get shot and not be armed? That's also why there's most always more than one of them.

It's simple math, 7 or 10 rounds isn't enough to properly defend yourself or family. 7 or 10 rounds is enough to stop ONE threat, maybe...if you're a really good shot.
 
khon said:
OP assumes that you need to kill every single intruder, which is not even close to true.

We're talking about self defense here, not mass murder. Scaring off or disabling the intruders is preferable to killing them all.
Click to expand...

I was talking about disabling or stopping the threats. That will statistically take 3-4 rounds on target. And statistically you're going to miss more than you hit.

It's just math.
 
2timer said:
The match up "will be" 1 on 1? So you can see into the future now, too? 😀

If you can't beat back a thief on your home turf with a shotgun and a premium security system, that tells me a) you are a titanic idiot, or b) you have no idea how to use a gun.
Click to expand...

So then why do police need AR15s with 30 round magazines? Are they titanic idiots? Do they have no idea how to use guns?

Why don't police go back to six shot revolvers and pump action shotguns?

The police obviously thought it was necessary to arm themselves with AR15s with 30 round magazines to defend themselves against one man in Boston. If that man broke into my house, would it not be reasonable that I should also be allowed to own an AR15 with 30 round magazines to defend myself with?
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
I like that, i had to go against everything i've been taught to get to that conclusion and justify it and you laugh.

I suppose this sheit happens to the retarded ugly fucks around here daily and that is why you need a gun, right?

Fuck you and the lot of you, you never gave a fuck about the original intent of the amendment, you use Switzerland as an example even though they have to have the active parts locked up and you are just fucking dishonest little twats.

The truth is, even with a gun and i have none i will make sure you're dead before me anyway, i have everything to lose and you can ask any solier what a man in that position does.

I'd kill you regardless of your weaponry and my lack of it, you would never have a chance.

Bonus, steal my guns and they are suddenly illegal guns... not counted among the legal guns used for killing people.

Anyone who don't get that legal guns are the butter and bread of all illegal gun salesmen in the US are fucking retarded people.
Click to expand...


You are a complete idiot. How dare you attack guns and the 2nd Amendment. Maybe you should be more worried about what is happening to you in England.
 
woolfe9998 said:
If someone is armed and coming to kill you and/or your family, it's either personal or else you're a gangster/drug dealer. Either way you would know in advance that you're at risk and prepare accordingly. For everyone else, the risk is maybe the rare freak serial killer who is working alone and not with a firearm. Or maybe your wrong door scenario above.

I think if you buy guns just because you like them, that's fine.
Click to expand...

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders

As Jennifer Hawke-Petit and 11-year-old Michaela Petit shopped at a local supermarket, unbeknownst to them, they had been targeted by Komisarjevsky, who followed them home, and planned to later rob the family by home invasion...
Click to expand...

The gruesome details:
During this time, Hayes and Komisarjevsky escalated the aggravated nature of their crimes. Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted the 11-year-old daughter, Michaela. Komisarjevsky, who had photographed the sexual assault of the youth on his cell phone, then provoked Hayes to rape Hawke-Petit. While Hayes was raping Hawke-Petit on the floor of her living room, Komisarjevsky entered the room announcing that William Petit had escaped. Hayes then strangled Hawke-Petit, doused her lifeless body and parts of the house including the daughters' rooms with gasoline. The daughters, while tied to their beds, had both been doused with gasoline; each had her head covered with a pillowcase. A fire was then ignited, and Hayes and Komisarjevsky fled the scene. 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela both died from smoke inhalation
Click to expand...

This is why.
 
2timer said:
Does it make sense that civilians who've never actually faced imminent danger should be carrying the same weapons as law enforcement, who face real, deadly threats?
Click to expand...

civilians never face imminent danger? how many people died in muggings or home invasions last year? How many women were raped last year?

I see, your definition of "real, deadly threats" isn't the same for civilians as it is the police...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top