Multiple home invaders picked the wrong house in Texas

[zinfamous]

Did it say anywhere in the article mention that these intruders crossed the borders illegally, because I may have missed it as I was reading, or are you assholes just being dicks for the hell of it?

them didn't speak Texas English, therefore illegals.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

not the point. the common argument is that the assumption of being gunned down in an attempt deters home invasions.

I hear it all up and down here: gun ownership is beneficial in reducing home invasions. The theory that being amongst an armed populace will convince criminals to not even attempt the home invasion.

seems that it still happens.

...what, a DA was also gunned down in Texas, in public? criminal didn't assume that the DA was armed, or people in public were armed? ...or did, but obviously didn't care?

Look up the statistics behind kennesaw, ga and their gun laws and crime rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

 

[Smoblikat]

BUT PEOPLE ONLY NEED ONE GUN!!

This girl is a racist.

 

[Doppel]

not the point. the common argument is that the assumption of being gunned down in an attempt deters home invasions.

I hear it all up and down here: gun ownership is beneficial in reducing home invasions. The theory that being amongst an armed populace will convince criminals to not even attempt the home invasion.

seems that it still happens.

...what, a DA was also gunned down in Texas, in public? criminal didn't assume that the DA was armed, or people in public were armed? ...or did, but obviously didn't care?

Nobody has ever claimed this phenomena of deterrence is iron clad. Does modern science decrease the chance of dying from an infection? Do people still die from them? yes, yes

 

[waggy]

good for her. just another reason to keep a gun at the home.

 

[MetalMat]

I thought people were too scared to rob houses in Texas because the assumption is that everyone in Texas is armed?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here but I think most people who rob houses are dumbasses

 

[Doppel]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here but I think most people who rob houses are dumbasses

Absolutely they are fucking stupid in the huge majority. This goes for all blue-collar type crimes.

 

[monovillage]

not the point. the common argument is that the assumption of being gunned down in an attempt deters home invasions.

I hear it all up and down here: gun ownership is beneficial in reducing home invasions. The theory that being amongst an armed populace will convince criminals to not even attempt the home invasion.

seems that it still happens.

It's one of the points of having an armed population. I bet the recidivist rate of someone shot in the guts is low and the recidivist rate of someone killed by a homeowner is zero. Looks like a win/win to me.

 

[zinfamous]

Look up the statistics behind kennesaw, ga and their gun laws and crime rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

so, later research, (2 independently published papers), showed that, statistically, the ordinance did not reduce the rate of home invasions.

makes sense--when reading that, the early reports simply look at reductions from year to year, likely ignoring demographic and economic data.

...so I guess we need another model

 

[amdhunter]

lol. nm

 

[SandEagle]

another recent good story involving multiple invaders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IOjG35Vlvw

 

[RampantAndroid]

not the point. the common argument is that the assumption of being gunned down in an attempt deters home invasions.

I hear it all up and down here: gun ownership is beneficial in reducing home invasions. The theory that being amongst an armed populace will convince criminals to not even attempt the home invasion.

seems that it still happens.

...what, a DA was also gunned down in Texas, in public? criminal didn't assume that the DA was armed, or people in public were armed? ...or did, but obviously didn't care?

AFAIK, there's pretty much two types of criminals doing home invasions: the type who are unarmed and at the sound of ANYTHING they will leave. They try to break in when the home is empty, and if someone stumbles on them they might push you down to run off, but they don't stick around to fight, and don't hold you up. They're rarely armed.

Then there's the type of people doing B&E who will go in when someone is home, and will do harm. This is a case of the latter, when knowledge of high gun ownership likely helps some, but more than that, having a gun to defend yourself is just a good idea. Also, publicizing that some dipshits got shot while attempting a B&E will help deter future people, if they heard about a previous botched attempt.

What you're doing here is pointing to one case of a B&W done by what is likely illegal immigrants with a stolen gun, and saying "look, it doesn't work!" without data to actually back that up.

 

[Oldgamer]

No one is trying to take anyone's guns away.. jeesh all these posts!

Tighter gun control, and better registration of guns and licensing? Yes. Making sure oozies, and machine guns and AR-15's and the like, and high capacity mags and drums are illegal, yes. Are they coming to take your hand gun, or your hunting rifle? NO Are they coming to take your vintage guns, or historical guns, no.

By the way that girl was very lucky, lucky in deed that the guy didn't shoot her after getting the gun from her. Not everyone is so fortunate. A friend of mine had her apartment broken into many years ago, she grabbed her gun in her bedside table, the guy managed to wrestle it out of her hands, tied her up, raped her and then shot her with her own gun. She did live, but was critically wounded. Not everyone reacts the same way when they are confronted with an attacker. Some people freeze up which is what my friend did. It's that old "fight or flight" thing that makes the difference.

I really don't get the paranoia about those who think the government is going to come and get you, and take your guns. When I think of the nuts who think like this, all I can think of is the whole Waco debacle and Jim Jones..

 

[RampantAndroid]

Tighter gun control, and better registration of guns and licensing? Yes. Making sure oozies, and machine guns and AR-15's and the like, and high capacity mags and drums are illegal, yes. Are they coming to take your hand gun, or your hunting rifle? NO Are they coming to take your vintage guns, or historical guns, no.

You mean Uzi, right? I'd say something like "first off" or "let's start with" but I don't need to. There's one point to make: you don't know what you're talking about, plain and simple. TO illustrate my point, you should look at the NFA of 1968, where all automatic weapons (that is what a machine gun is, after all) are considered controlled items, and you cannot own them unless they were registered prior to 1986...and even then, most states don't allow them. Same goes for sawed off shotguns, short barreled rifles and whatnot. And machine guns that are legal regularly sell for anywhere between 20k-100k. I recently saw an M60E4 on sale for $85,000. No 'gangsta' is going to have that.

Sandy hook, Aurora, Gabby Giffords and so forth were not done using submachine guns or machine guns. They were done with semiautomatic weapons. Most of Aurora was done with a Glock firing 9mm rounds. 3% of all gun crime involves rifles. Stop spouting BS, alright?

 

[monovillage]

No one is trying to take anyone's guns away.. jeesh all these posts!

Tighter gun control, and better registration of guns and licensing? Yes. Making sure oozies, ........

uh yeah. Thanks for your input.

 

[lotus503]

Good use of a weapon. Too bad she didnt hit all three between the eyes.

Bringing your AR slung around your back to a department store, dumb use of a weapon.

 

[Brovane]

 

[Incorruptible]

No one is trying to take anyone's guns away.. jeesh all these posts!

Tighter gun control, and better registration of guns and licensing? Yes. Making sure oozies, and machine guns and AR-15's and the like, and high capacity mags and drums are illegal, yes. Are they coming to take your hand gun, or your hunting rifle? NO Are they coming to take your vintage guns, or historical guns, no.

By the way that girl was very lucky, lucky in deed that the guy didn't shoot her after getting the gun from her. Not everyone is so fortunate. A friend of mine had her apartment broken into many years ago, she grabbed her gun in her bedside table, the guy managed to wrestle it out of her hands, tied her up, raped her and then shot her with her own gun. She did live, but was critically wounded. Not everyone reacts the same way when they are confronted with an attacker. Some people freeze up which is what my friend did. It's that old "fight or flight" thing that makes the difference.

I really don't get the paranoia about those who think the government is going to come and get you, and take your guns. When I think of the nuts who think like this, all I can think of is the whole Waco debacle and Jim Jones..

The ignorance is strong in this one, Considering its POS like this guy that support the POS obama people should be scared about the confiscation of guns

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/13/George-Soros-13-New-Gun-Laws-That-Are-Needed-Now

 

[Doppel]

No one is trying to take anyone's guns away...Making sure oozies, and machine guns and AR-15's and the like, and high capacity mags and drums are illegal, yes.

You just contradicted yourself and sadly you probably don't even see the contradiction. Feels a bit like chocolate ration increasing from 30 grams to 20 to me.

I assume you've read how these "assault weapons" are more or less the same as any other semi-auto rifle except with cosmetic differences (after all, that is how they are defined), but you don't care. I assume you know that rifle deaths from guns in general are a tiny percentage of them, but you don't care. I assume you know further that of rifle deaths Assault weapons make only a percentage of that, but again you just don't care. For you it's emotion, not reason.

 

[klinc]

I thought people were too scared to rob houses in Texas because the assumption is that everyone in Texas is armed?

Haha I was thinking the same thing.

 

[classy]

Yep. The take away is they normally travel in packs. 3-4-5 is the norm, not the exception. That's what 30 rounds is for.

Given that at least half the shots won't hit their target, with 5 bad guys that's only 3 bullets in each.

You are such an internet "superstar"

 

[Oldgamer]

Well I see my spelling is being corrected, sorry I am not as familiar with the correct spellings of certain weapons, and that seems to be a great way to divert attention to the points I was trying to make.

From what I have read most deaths seem to be from standard handguns and rifles etc. As opposed to a military grade assault weapon. I understand that. But that isn't the point. It is also my understanding that some of these weapons that have been modified / downgraded or have a "cosmetic appearance" as some have put it can also be easily converted back to the functionality of an automatic weapon. See this informative article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Aurora-and-by-the-DC-Sniper-It-s-the-same-gun

The laws that most are proposing are to ban these type of weapons so that one cannot convert or use it as a automatic weapon period. Or have more than 10 - 11 rounds shot before reloading, hence banning high capacity mags or drums that can hold 100 rounds.

The point which you completely diverted with the whole "your spelling is wrong" post and "you base your opinions on feelings not facts" posts is that these weapons have no place in civilian hands. You can protect yourself adequately with a basic handgun or rifle without having some UZI or (easily converted semi automatic weapon to a automatic weapon) shooting off 100s of rounds in a matter of seconds or minutes.

As the author stated in the article I linked, "Quote" The AR-15 has more variants than any other rifle I know of. The compatibility with both .223 and 5.56 rounds makes the Armalite extremely popular with disaster preppers. There are variants chambered in other rounds, such as the .50 Beowulf, a 50-caliber round developed for the military which is designed to be used against vehicles and other harder targets. Those very high powered rounds are available on the civilian market.

There are other very dangerous modifications, including the ability to have a rifle that is legally a semi-automatic weapon, but functionally an automatic weapon. These completely legal devices are called "sliding stock" devices which allow shooters to bump-fire their weapons. They serve no practical purpose, even the advertisement admits that it's a "recreational" device."

The point is civilians don't need these weapons and some of these semi automatic weapons are just too easily converted back to an automatic weapon.

Yes, I do believe that these weapons should be banned from the market, and apparently other countries do to, like those listed in the article I just linked. I also believe high capacity mags should be banned.

As this author says with regard to variants of the AR-15: It is commonly sold with 30-round clips in the United States. In Germany, the maximum legally allowed AR-15 clip size for hunters is two rounds. With one round in the chamber, that means a maximum of three shots before reloading. I'm of the opinion that if you can't shoot a deer in three shots, you need to pick a different hobby, but I actually prefer the New York and California State law, which bans clips with a greater capacity than five rounds. That's the place where Americans seem to be comfortable. The AWB prohibited clips over a maximum of 10 rounds.

The other point I was making is that, most who try to rationalize keeping such weapons and high capacity mags available and legal to the general public use the old "but the government might come get us in our homes, so we have to defend ourselves" which is such a lame "fantasy based argument" it just falls flat on its face.

If it gets to that point in this country and the government has gone haywire and starts coming for its citizens, well, no gun of any type is going to help you period.

But I prefer to stay in the reality of the argument and not the fantasy of the "what ifs"..

Oh by the way, which many of you seem to be discovering is that certain types of these weapons have been banned in various states for some time now. Certain types of mags and drums as well. Each state has had its own laws on the books regarding these weapons, but since all the NRA hoopla, people who otherwise wouldn't have known are just now discovering.

 

[Matt1970]

No one is trying to take anyone's guns away.. jeesh all these posts!

Tighter gun control, and better registration of guns and licensing? Yes. Making sure oozies, and machine guns and AR-15's and the like, and high capacity mags and drums are illegal, yes. Are they coming to take your hand gun, or your hunting rifle? NO Are they coming to take your vintage guns, or historical guns, no.

By the way that girl was very lucky, lucky in deed that the guy didn't shoot her after getting the gun from her. Not everyone is so fortunate. A friend of mine had her apartment broken into many years ago, she grabbed her gun in her bedside table, the guy managed to wrestle it out of her hands, tied her up, raped her and then shot her with her own gun. She did live, but was critically wounded. Not everyone reacts the same way when they are confronted with an attacker. Some people freeze up which is what my friend did. It's that old "fight or flight" thing that makes the difference.

I really don't get the paranoia about those who think the government is going to come and get you, and take your guns. When I think of the nuts who think like this, all I can think of is the whole Waco debacle and Jim Jones..

You can tell the families of the victims at Columbine they were lucky their kids got killed by a handgun that only carried 10 rounds. Things would have been much worse if they were killed by a gun with a 15 round magazine.

They basically took our handguns in NY. A friend of mine already called the manufacturer about his pistols and one of them is not going to make a NY Compliant magazine for it.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Well I see my spelling is being corrected, sorry I am not as familiar with the correct spellings of certain weapons, and that seems to be a great way to divert attention to the points I was trying to make.

From what I have read most deaths seem to be from standard handguns and rifles etc. As opposed to a military grade assault weapon. I understand that. But that isn't the point. It is also my understanding that some of these weapons that have been modified / downgraded or have a "cosmetic appearance" as some have put it can also be easily converted back to the functionality of an automatic weapon. See this informative article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Aurora-and-by-the-DC-Sniper-It-s-the-same-gun

The laws that most are proposing are to ban these type of weapons so that one cannot convert or use it as a automatic weapon period. Or have more than 10 - 11 rounds shot before reloading, hence banning high capacity mags or drums that can hold 100 rounds.

The point which you completely diverted with the whole "your spelling is wrong" post and "you base your opinions on feelings not facts" posts is that these weapons have no place in civilian hands. You can protect yourself adequately with a basic handgun or rifle without having some UZI or (easily converted semi automatic weapon to a automatic weapon) shooting off 100s of rounds in a matter of seconds or minutes.

As the author stated in the article I linked, "Quote" The AR-15 has more variants than any other rifle I know of. The compatibility with both .223 and 5.56 rounds makes the Armalite extremely popular with disaster preppers. There are variants chambered in other rounds, such as the .50 Beowulf, a 50-caliber round developed for the military which is designed to be used against vehicles and other harder targets. Those very high powered rounds are available on the civilian market.

There are other very dangerous modifications, including the ability to have a rifle that is legally a semi-automatic weapon, but functionally an automatic weapon. These completely legal devices are called "sliding stock" devices which allow shooters to bump-fire their weapons. They serve no practical purpose, even the advertisement admits that it's a "recreational" device."

The point is civilians don't need these weapons and some of these semi automatic weapons are just too easily converted back to an automatic weapon.

Yes, I do believe that these weapons should be banned from the market, and apparently other countries do to, like those listed in the article I just linked. I also believe high capacity mags should be banned.

As this author says with regard to variants of the AR-15: It is commonly sold with 30-round clips in the United States. In Germany, the maximum legally allowed AR-15 clip size for hunters is two rounds. With one round in the chamber, that means a maximum of three shots before reloading. I'm of the opinion that if you can't shoot a deer in three shots, you need to pick a different hobby, but I actually prefer the New York and California State law, which bans clips with a greater capacity than five rounds. That's the place where Americans seem to be comfortable. The AWB prohibited clips over a maximum of 10 rounds.

The other point I was making is that, most who try to rationalize keeping such weapons and high capacity mags available and legal to the general public use the old "but the government might come get us in our homes, so we have to defend ourselves" which is such a lame "fantasy based argument" it just falls flat on its face.

If it gets to that point in this country and the government has gone haywire and starts coming for its citizens, well, no gun of any type is going to help you period.

But I prefer to stay in the reality of the argument and not the fantasy of the "what ifs"..

Oh by the way, which many of you seem to be discovering is that certain types of these weapons have been banned in various states for some time now. Certain types of mags and drums as well. Each state has had its own laws on the books regarding these weapons, but since all the NRA hoopla, people who otherwise wouldn't have known are just now discovering.

Please educate yourself before making posts about what is and isn't legal because you clearly have no clue what the actual gun laws are.

AR-15s are legal in every state but new York and magazine size is not restricted in nearly all states.

 

[hal2kilo]

not the point. the common argument is that the assumption of being gunned down in an attempt deters home invasions.

I hear it all up and down here: gun ownership is beneficial in reducing home invasions. The theory that being amongst an armed populace will convince criminals to not even attempt the home invasion.

seems that it still happens.

...what, a DA was also gunned down in Texas, in public? criminal didn't assume that the DA was armed, or people in public were armed? ...or did, but obviously didn't care?

Silly, burglars never look for guns. Why would they want one of those.