Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 73. (Read 450482 times)

The problem is there are many things that are now classified as mental diseases that are not mental diseases, some of the prominent mental disorders are neurological or genetic so it could be possible to make tests for it.

https://youtu.be/uB5RZTBhK4c?t=3m47s

I would consider that to be three pieces of bad advice in rapid succession, but of course it is just my personal opinion.

After screwing around the the automatic I mentioned, I think I would prefer one of those for dealing with multiple waskuwee wobbers in an indoor environment should I miss the opportunity to get them at the door or window.

Thinking back, I have used an M1911 (45 ACP) in the military but I don't remember it being as usable feeling as the 9mm.  And the alternative was the M16 which was quite applicable and nice in a variety of situations.

I shoot well. Not a problem for me to get a gun in person from a distance of 30 yards. I doubt very much that you will get at a distance with a shotgun. In addition the longer the weapon the harder to use indoors.The closer the offender, the less chances you have to protect yourself.

You really gotta cut that barrel down to about 10 inches. This way, with bird shot, you can effectively take out several robbers at once, rather then blast a big hole in only one of them.

The requirement of Government that the barrel be kept long is something that is a hindrance to self protection.

I am fond of shotguns because of the adaptability.  The only time I've used mine in 'defense' was to discourage a bear.  I came home and startled a sow and her cub, and she climbed 15 feet up a tree very close to my deck to keep an eye on me.  I selected a rubber slug and never saw her or her cub again.  A lead slug is a whole different thing, and there is everything in between.  (BTW, a lead slug or even buckshot is quite 'effective' well beyond 10 meters.)

Shotguns can also be fairly intimidating, and in the hands of a territorial property owner they demonstrably strike fear into the soul of a criminal.  If an uninvited person invades one's property the very best outcome is if they leave on their own and don't come back.

I have a lot of respect for people who will take risk to themselves to give a potential criminal a break.  Many home invasions are stupid teens and there is at least a 50% chance that they would grow up.  OTOH, there is another 50% chance that they'll continue to cause misery for a few years until they get shot or incarcerated.  Further, a stupid but relatively harmless dead teen probably keeps 100 more from getting started in the breaking and entering habit.

A few years ago in the Portland area some guy nailed a teen who was crawling in his window with a rubber slug.  The kid self-reported to the emergency room with hairline skull fractures and a hell of a bruise.  Last year in my town some guy held three teens at gunpoint in his home and made them call the cops on themselves.  Kudo's to these merciful adults, but I would not recommend it and especially not if one has any questions about their own skill or situation awareness.  I honestly don't know what I would do, but I would hold it against no-one to _completely_ neutralize the threat.

Don't forget that the shotgun is effective at a distance of 10 meters. With gun and then to hit the target. Will protect your property do not forget that the perp at that distance with a knife can be more effective than you with a shotgun.

If someone is in my home without my permission, it's my primary goal to end the threat by ending their life. The shotgun is an effective tool for this purpose.

They have clearly proven, by entering my home without my permission, that they do not acknowledge my rights, so why should I acknowledge theirs?

I'm not protecting my house. I'm protecting the people who live inside it. The people I care about. Assuming the intruder is there for a simple robbery, and not to rape and eat your children, is your first mistake. As far as I know, he won't have a flashing neon sign on his forehead that says "BURGLAR". If I employ anything less than lethal force, in some twisted consideration for the thug who has invaded my home, I am doing my family a disservice.

I'll fix the drywall later...

Right! And the regulation has to come from average people carrying guns, so that when something like this happens, they can get rid of the assassin on the spot.

In Western nations gun culture is common. These days it need to have strong regulations because several such incidents have taken the life of innocent people. Governments need to act fast to get better outcome. Recently an IT professional was shot dead in US.

You ever shot a shotgun? I am sure that there. Home-defense aimed at preventing a robbery, and not the destruction of your home. Besides injuries from a shotgun causing more serious injuries and can lead to death. I don't consider the shotgun an acceptable weapon for self-defense of habitation.

For the protection of their property and the territory, home or something like that, really shotgun fit better the rest of the weapons. Of course this is the last degree of self-defense. More would not hurt to do surveillance. But to carry a gun on the street already does not seem normal. There are other ways to protect yourself. While it is true on the street more risk to the life, than at home.

The shotgun deals great damage to health for the attacker. Besides, he is only effective at close range. It seems to me that for self defense the best fit for the gun, of course if you will train your skills in shooting.

Sounds good! You've clearly thought plenty about these things and have a firm grasp on the subject. Also, I agree, baby steps are better than no steps at all.

If we did discuss this before, I may even have completely changed direction since then! I don't remember exactly when I decided that a shotgun was the best fit for my home defense needs. I did change pistol calibers at one point in my journey.

I just wanted to add my two cents (probably more for the audience's benefit than yours).

I think we've had this discussion before, but it was a while back.  I personally prefer a shotgun for home defense (and investigating issues on my property be they human, sub-human, or animal), but one can have both.

In this case, it was a struggle to get the family member to have anything at all.  The anti-gun propaganda strongly effects a lot of people.  A small firearm is a good first step and I hope that once the shame and guilt of being a gun owner subsides there will be upgrades in the mix.  Additionally, the people who need guns the most tend to be those who are the least physically capable of dealing with their operation because the scumbags who are a threat target them specifically.

The primary load I choose for my shotgun(s) are 00-buck and slugs.  This in case I need to defend against bears or engine blocks.  I personally don't have much of an issue with the recoil but everyone is built differently.

Camera technology is increasing rapidly.  I just put some effort into hooking everything into zoneminder.  There is a fair chance that by the time an attacker and I meet I will have been watching them for 15 minutes or so and will have selected the proper mix of weapons, but this is due to the layout of my property as much as anything.

I was going to write a long post but I'll keep it short and sweet (also, everything here is just my opinion, not the only opinion). I've done a lot of research on calibers and firearms over the past oh... too many years. I own one pistol caliber: 9mm. I own several handguns, all the same brand (Glock), which I've come to know like the back of my hand.

A pistol is only for when you can't carry a rifle. What I mean to say is that for home defense, where your options are wide open, a pistol should only be considered backup. My preferred choice is a Remington 870 Police Magnum 12 gauge with extended magazine and low recoil personal defense shells. No fancy add-ons.



In action (it's a marine magnum, same thing - nickle plated for extreme conditions). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fb1VIiRYg

If you plan to use any weapon for self-defense, consider professional training! It's really unbelievable how much you can learn. I've been around firearms all my life, and I'm still learning.

Perhaps it should be made mandatory to get a certificate from a qualified psychiatrist before someone can own a gun. Or at least, the cops can bar anyone who has undergone prior treatment for mental disease from owning the firearms.

I just got a 9mm which is a caliber I've not had any experience with.  Actually I got it for someone else, but might buy them a different one and trade them.  It is a Taurus 709 slim which is sort of targeted at the concealed carry crowd.  I'm mostly familiar with my 357 mag.  The 9mm is quite manageable by comparison.  Even with the relatively small automatic I feel that I could put a number of bullets into someone breaking through a door in under a second.

For home defense purposes I would suggest a more full sized automatic mostly because it holds more rounds.  Might be even easier to rack and fire also.  Not sure since I've not played around with one.  The one I got was sort of a spur-of-the-moment purchase for a family member since there have been troubles with tweekers in my area of late.

In contemplating tactics recently and watching some of the home invasion footage on youtube, I would suggest that the most important thing a person can do is to have a well thought out and well rehearsed plan about where in the house to retreat to. and how to mount an attack or defense from there.  Practice it a bunch so it is Pavlovian should one's window breaking be what wakes a person up.

I would also suggest to analyze various available footage paying attention to the behavior of the home invaders and put yourself into their minds remembering that in the common case they will be learning the layout of the house as they go.  It is interesting to note how common it is for home invaders to work in groups of three.

Not sure if it's been posted on this board or not, but here is a rather delightful bit of footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOcTAADa38

Shows how useless 911 can be and it is awfully amusing when the woman loses patience and hangs up on 911 to call her husband in order to get some actual help.  Apparently Asian restaurant owners are specifically targeted because they close late and often take the night's earnings home.  Interestingly and not surprisingly the strong consensus is that this woman should be granted instant U.S. citizenship if she wants it.

How do you tell if someone has a mental disease? Someone accuses him. Then a bunch of people jump him and haul him off to a professional for evaluation.

The 2nd Amendment says:
Did you notice the "not be infringed" part? Yet, we have all sorts of infringement all over the place, in most of the States. So, if the professionals can get away with infringement, what is to keep them from getting away with declaring that we all have a mental disease, and none of us should have guns? What this means is that the professionals and Government are the ones with the mental disease right now, because they are trying to make us fearful so we give up our guns voluntarily.

The answer is, require all the people to open carry. Nobody wants to die, or even be harmed. And the requirement to open carry when off your own residence will make the only protection that will work... self-protection. Even the mentally ill will understand, and respect the gun in the hands of their potential victim.

You are absolutely right. People with mental diseases such as schizophrenia must not be allowed to own weapons. The same with the felons as well. If they don't have the right to vote, then why they should have the right to own guns?