Frightening! Three Masked Teens with Guns Shot Dead by Homeowner in GA w/ AR-15

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Sahba*, Sep 18, 2019.

  1. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not knowing the current NFA is no big deal. I am no more anti-gun than you are mainstream.
     
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    NFA hasn't appreciably changed.

    So you're pretty anti-gun. I don't view myself as mainstream.
     
    Reality likes this.
  3. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have no idea if NFA has changed or not, do you?

    I own guns, and, yes, you are right: you are not mainstream, by my standards.
     
  4. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I havent backed down from anything, nor was I being hyperbolic. If you dont know the requirements of the law you dont know about the law.
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  5. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    O do teach the class all about it bud :banana:
     
  6. SiNNiK

    SiNNiK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    10,432
    Likes Received:
    4,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The locked door or locked window they broke through in order to get into my place in the first place was their warning, the next sound they hear is the click of the safety coming off. No warning pump, no warning christmas card, no more warnings.

    Do you think that breaking into a occupied residence is the act of a reasonable person? No? Then why on Earth do you continue to expect nothing but reasonable behavior from these people? The only reason you expect those guys to run when hearing a shotgun being racked is because you would run if you heard a shotgun being racked. Nothing more.

    It's idiotic to think there is some legal lines these guys won't cross, some social expectation they won't observe, and to place your safety in the expectation that at some point they will start acting as you expected them to and it will all work out where you and your loved ones are all alive and unharmed at the end of the event.
     
    roorooroo and US Conservative like this.
  7. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,452
    Likes Received:
    7,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is if you want to have an opinion on gun laws
     
  8. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,472
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can get a Mac-10 for about $12k or so.

    An M-16A1 is gonna run you about $30k last time I checked prices.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
    US Conservative likes this.
  9. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's good to see the hypocrites who worship guns starting to wobble. We gun owners have responsibilities to our families, friends, neighbors, community, and the country. Reasonable regulation and registration is constitutional. No one can show differently.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  10. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your arguments are wobbling.
     
  11. SiNNiK

    SiNNiK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    10,432
    Likes Received:
    4,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not. You sound desperate.
     
    Reality likes this.
  12. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    statistically maybe because there are more populated then the rural areas, so It would make sense that the numbers are greater, but if you look at the crime ratio city vs. rural you'll find statistically per person rural areas have just as much, if not more crime.


    https://thecrimereport.org/2018/05/14/rural-violent-crime-rate-rises-above-u-s-average/
     
  13. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The red portions of LA are more violent than the black populations.
     
  14. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    7,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you think that one day Americans will ever see beyond rights and liberty? I don't want to sound arrogant etc.. but this rights and liberty excuse is just a fallacy. It was all great in the late 1700's but life has progressed beyond that significantly.

    Have you ever sat down and thought about those two words? Liberty - free to do what you want, but, no you can't. You need a driving licence to drive, a certain place to walk across the road, you can't just rape anyone etc.. So is it Selective Liberty? I think most countries have that.

    And rights. Search of YouTube for Jordan Peterson about rights and responsibilities. Very interesting talk from the Canadian psychologist.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  15. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you get to decide for everyone?
     
  16. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is the opening from the link:
    The violent-crime rate in rural areas rose above the national average for the first time in a decade, the Wall Street Journal reports. Though cities on average have a higher violent crime rate than rural areas, large metropolitan areas are safer than they have been in decades, while some small communities are getting more dangerous.

    The paragraph above is misleading, if not illogical. The first sentence says that violent crime rate in rural areas is above the national average. Wouldn't that mean that non-rural areas would necessarily have to be below the national average? But the second sentence says that on average, cities have a higher violent crime rate than rural areas. How can both rural and non-rural areas be above the national average? The math is not adding up.

    Never-the-less, the link clearly states that cities on average have a higher violent crime rate than rural areas. So it seems your statement above is incorrect. Rural areas are safer than cities. Your link says so. And it isn't because of greater population, because the crime rate is per capita, not total number of crimes.
     
    Grau and 557 like this.
  17. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Points to you for perseverance. I read the dang thing twice, threw my hands up in bewilderment and walked away.
     
    roorooroo and SiNNiK like this.
  18. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonnie, good thoughts, thanks. I will find the time this weekend to watch Peterson's video - I certainly put credence in his views, as he is a very intelligent thinker.

    Yes, liberty is selective, as you stated, because otherwise, there is that "nasty, brutish and short" thing. But "selective liberty" has a huge span - and therein lies the disagreement. Just how much authority is given to "government," and how much authority is given to the individual? Do we want the safest society possible, or the freest society possible? The answer lies somewhere in between. I fully admit that where one stands on the matter is subjective.

    For many Americans (and many members of this forum), individual liberty takes precedent over safety. This comes from what we learned in school, what we saw on television, from our parents, from the towns we grew up in, and from our history (not only of the United States, but from the individual states too). Our history (which isn't that long ago) is replete with individuals and small groups of individuals who put their lives at risk to gain liberty from what they saw as their oppressors. Eschewing safety in pursuit of liberty was essentially ingrained in many of us. Courage and bravery was important. Sure, some will say it was propaganda and brainwashing, but others will say we were provided glimpses of the most noble pursuit of man - individual liberty.

    I doubt you would know much of the history of my home state of Texas, but it is quite amazing (my opinion), with individuals fighting against long odds - many gave their lives for liberty and sovereignty. In fact, my avatar is from Texas history. So I hope you can understand the heritage that makes me and those like me believe what we believe. Just reading the quotes from our forefathers, both American and Texan, is inspiring - and will give insight into the beliefs we hold. Sure, many will dismiss my heritage, but I actually pity those who don't have what I have.

    So, I am more than willing to take the risks of being a victim of a mass shooting than to give up essential freedoms. Essential, you ask? Yes, my opinion, which holds just as much weight as anyone else's opinion.

    Others from various backgrounds will certainly not have these same feelings. Many were not raised to value the "individual sovereignty" we were raised with. Many come from histories of being subjects to monarchs and the ruling class, so no surprise they lean to "government sovereignty". I am certainly lucky (and proud) that I was raised with the former.

    Along with that "individual sovereignty" comes "individual responsibility." We were taught to take care of ourselves and our families. We never ever expected a hand-out from others. In fact, that would be the ultimate embarrassment. We work hard, we take care of our own, and we pity those who prefer the collective. But those who prefer the security of big brother also eschew the responsibility that comes with individual liberty. They prefer to deny their personal responsibility and have the government (others) take care of them instead of taking care of themselves. This can be seen on the forum here, those who prefer gun control also typically prefer a gigantic cradle-to-grave nanny-state that squashes individual autonomy.

    But fear not. As time passes, the bold deeds of my heroes will be forgotten, other "heroes" will take their place, and society will march inextricably toward the government controlled nanny-state. Globalism, socialism, and the collective will consume all. It is inevitable - opinions like mine will be relegated to the dustbin of obscurity.
     
    Grau and 557 like this.
  19. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well don't complain to me about the way the link was written, track down the authors and read them the riot act.
     
  20. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You made me smile. Are you saying you didn't read the link and give it some thought? But tried to use it to make a point anyway?
     
  21. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The way I read the link was exactly as I posted my viewpoint. I don't think its misleading at all. You just don't agree with the contents; your beef is with the author and not the messenger.
     
  22. roorooroo

    roorooroo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,814
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    https://victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf

    Violent crime in metropolitan areas: 428.3 per 100,000

    Violent crime in cities outside metropolitan areas: 399.7 per 100

    Non-metropolitan counties: 195.1 per 100,000
     
  23. NMNeil

    NMNeil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They would not confiscate guns, that would be political suicide. What they will do will be by increments and each time the phrase of "If this legislation saves the life of just one child, it's worth it"

    A slow and steady reduction of magazine capacity until it's down to only one round. This would automatically ban semi and full auto firearms without the need for legislation.
    A slow and steady reduction in calibers, like California's ban on .50 cal as an attack on BMG firearms. May end up at .25 cal as the maximum allowed.
    A slow and steady reduction in the number of rounds you are allowed to buy in a certain time period.
    A slow and steady reduction in the number of rounds you are allowed to keep in your own home.
    A slow and steady reduction in allowed muzzle energy from a round.
    A ban on the use of any ammunition metals considered toxic, and yes the definition would be changed to include copper and tin. They may even do an extensive but biased study on the smoke from burning propellants and find those are toxic.
    A slow and steady increase in the requirements people have to meet to be allowed to own a firearm. Psych tests (expensive), extensive training (expensive), locking safes to store firearms in the home (expensive).

    You get the idea. Not an outright ban but if you passed the psyche test, passed all the training and certification, had an approve safe installed in your house and inspected you would be allowed to own a single shot .25 cal or less firearm, provided the single shot was approved as having no toxic metal in it's construction.

    Or, you can vote Republican.
     
    roorooroo and Grau like this.
  24. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,035
    Likes Received:
    4,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "But it's 'FOR THE CHILDREN!"


    Where would gun banners be without irrational appeals to emotion?
     
    roorooroo and Wildjoker5 like this.
  25. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where did I say they would run, when you hear a shotgun cocked I don't give a damn how tough or bad you are; you take notice. That doesn't mean you are going to take off running, if the **** doesn't get them the blast will.
     

Share This Page