Proof that we need more gun control

[Tigermike 3,425]

Updated: 10:08 p.m. Friday, Jan. 4, 2013 | Posted: 3:25 p.m. Friday, Jan. 4, 2013

Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder

LOGANVILLE, Ga. —

A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

"The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

"She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said.

The woman ran to a neighbor's home with her children. The intruder attempted to flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said.

Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. Chapman said they found him on the ground saying, "Help me. I'm close to dying." Slater was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment. Chapman said Slater was shot in the face and neck.

In February, Slater was arrested on simple battery charges, according to the Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office. He has been arrested six other times in the county since 2008.

Kavanaugh was the first reporter at the scene as deputies investigated. The victim's husband told Kavanaugh he's proud of his wife. He was on the phone with her as the intruder broke in.

"My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner," Donnie Herman said.

He said he's thankful for his family's safety.

"Her life is saved, and her kids' life is saved, and that's all I'd like to say," Herman said.

Channel 2’s Amy Napier Viteri learned from Chapman late Friday night that slater has been placed on a ventilator and suffers from punctured lungs, a punctured liver and a punctured stomach.

He said if Slater survives the night, doctors will try to operate in the morning to repair the damage.

Chapman said Slater has four exit wounds.

Slater is currently being charged with burglary.

http://www.wsbtv.com...intruder/nTm7s/

Sounds like she needed a larger caliber hand gun to me. Or maybe an assault weapon would have done the trick.

[alexava 6,974]

i think she did great. and she was well armed and seemed prepared. without a machine gun.

[autigeremt 6,970]

i think she did great. and she was well armed and seemed prepared. without a machine gun.

Machine guns are currently banned without a special permit in the US. The O'Bama administration has provided more guns to criminals than anyone, yet he gets a pass from the looney left. Go figure.

[The Freak 2,530]

She definitely needs more gun control...

She missed once.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

i think she did great. and she was well armed and seemed prepared. without a machine gun.

Machine guns are currently banned without a special permit in the US. The O'Bama administration has provided more guns to criminals than anyone, yet he gets a pass from the looney left. Go figure.

Amazing how silent these people are about Fast and Furious. Obama and Holder should both be in jail.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

She definitely needs more gun control...

She missed once.

^-^/>

If only she had had a gun with a 10 round magazine ...

[alexava 6,974]

i think she did great. and she was well armed and seemed prepared. without a machine gun.

Machine guns are currently banned without a special permit in the US. The O'Bama administration has provided more guns to criminals than anyone, yet he gets a pass from the looney left. Go figure.

Amazing how silent these people are about Fast and Furious. Obama and Holder should both be in jail.

you blame obama for fast and furious, but i bet you give him no credit whatsoever for bin ladin.......

[douggwilliams 61]

Good story. That dude was a stud. 5-6 bullets and was still kicking. Wish I could say the same for our team last year. I agree, guns good. I also agree, Assault weapons bad, Is this what this post was about?

[AUTUmike 79]

http://news.yahoo.com/death-wash-boy-third-gun-accident-3-weeks-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210409/Tragedy-father-shoots-dead-15-year-old-burglar-realises-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/state/92-year-old-oh-woman-mistakes-officer-as-burglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

[AURaptor 1,137]

you blame obama for fast and furious, but i bet you give him no credit whatsoever for bin ladin.......

What does one have to do w/ the other ? And Obama gives himself enough credit for killing bin Laden already. There's no need for anyone else to also.

[80Tiger 906]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

[cptau 169]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

[Ouchyfish 67]

I blame Vin Diesel for Fast and the Furious.

[AUTUmike 79]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

[Tigermike 3,425]

The 2nd Amendment preserves our right to protect ourselves, our family and our possessions. It is not limited to a "well-regulated militia." which has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Had the bleeding hert, bed wetting libs had their way the lady in the article would have been a victim waiting on the police to show up.

And speaking of bleeding hert, bed wetting libs "Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would require background checks for buying gun ammunition."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/276155-blumenthal-introduces-new-legislation-on-gun-ammunition

[japantiger 4,077]

The 2nd Amendment preserves our right to protect ourselves, our family and our possessions. It is not limited to a "well-regulated militia." which has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Had the bleeding hert, bed wetting libs had their way the lady in the article would have been a victim waiting on the police to show up.

And speaking of bleeding hert, bed wetting libs "Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would require background checks for buying gun ammunition."

http://thehill.com/b...-gun-ammunition

I'd love to see a misunderstood Jefferson quote on the 2nd Amendment....like this one maybe

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Yeah, I can see how such ambiguous language like this could be misconstrued...

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."-- Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446 ....ouch...this one has got to hurt the "bed wetters"...love that characterization.

[AUGradinTX 0]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

[autigeremt 6,970]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Then you see this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Now ask yourself....how many of those countries have 325,000,000 people living in their country?

This is most telling:

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

[AUTUmike 79]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon.

As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm

William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/justice/new-york-firefighters-shooter/index.html

The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/aurora-colorado-theater-shooting/

[3rdgen 2]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon.

As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns

http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm

William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html

The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/

Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer.

http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/

http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp

http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer

http://www.lawdailyr...&ArticleID=1424

http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html

http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner

[AUDub 11,424]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon.

As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns

http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm

William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html

The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/

Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer.

http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/

http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp

http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer

http://www.lawdailyr...&ArticleID=1424

http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html

http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner

False equivalence. Hammers are tools. They were designed to drive nails and hit things. The fact that you can hit people with them is irrelevant.

[3rdgen 2]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon.

As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...ed=all&_r=0

The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns

http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm

William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html

The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/

Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer.

http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/

http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp

http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer

http://www.lawdailyr...;ArticleID=1424

http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html

http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner

False equivalence. Hammers are tools. They were designed to drive nails and hit things. The fact that you can hit people with them is irrelevant.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a tool as a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. Sounds like a gun to me. Guns were designed to fire projectiles. The fact you can shoot people, animals, paper targets, or old cars with them is irrelevant. It is the person behind the tool that determines what task the tool is used to accomplish. Whether that tool is a gun or a hammer.

[AUDub 11,424]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon.

As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...ed=all&_r=0

The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns

http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm

William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html

The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/

Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer.

http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/

http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp

http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer

http://www.lawdailyr...;ArticleID=1424

http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html

http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner

False equivalence. Hammers are tools. They were designed to drive nails and hit things. The fact that you can hit people with them is irrelevant.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a tool as a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. Sounds like a gun to me. Guns were designed to fire projectiles. The fact you can shoot people, animals, paper targets, or old cars with them is irrelevant. It is the person behind the tool that determines what task the tool is used to accomplish. Whether that tool is a gun or a hammer.

Guns are not tools. They are weapons. Yes, they accomplish a task. They're designed to maim, kill, hurt, threaten, destroy, damage, hit, etc., etc, ad nauseum. I own guns. They are not tools like a hammer. They are deadly weapons to be treated with the utmost respect, and used with the greatest care and only in the rare (emphasis) but necessary extraordinary situation, hunting, or days at the range. You do not discuss them flippantly. Impressionable people might be listening. An insane person with a knife is one thing. A ignorant (dare I say Stupid?) person with a gun presents the same level of danger. An insane person with a gun is a horrible, but all too common occurrence. One who calls guns tools does not properly respect what he holds and should not be holding it. Tools accomplish constructive things (eg cut that rope, carve that lumber, assemble that gun). A gun pointed at anything is only necessary if you want to destroy it, or kill it. Either way if you're aiming a gun at it, you don't really care if it's intact after a round or two. Don't parrot NRA talking points and expect to come up with your own definitions for words like tool. They aren't open for interpretation.

[3rdgen 2]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon.

As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...ll&_r=0

The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns

http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm

William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html

The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/

Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer.

http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/

http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp

http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer

http://www.lawdailyr...;ArticleID=1424

http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html

http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner

False equivalence. Hammers are tools. They were designed to drive nails and hit things. The fact that you can hit people with them is irrelevant.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a tool as a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. Sounds like a gun to me. Guns were designed to fire projectiles. The fact you can shoot people, animals, paper targets, or old cars with them is irrelevant. It is the person behind the tool that determines what task the tool is used to accomplish. Whether that tool is a gun or a hammer.

Guns are not tools. They are weapons. Yes, they accomplish a task. They're designed to maim, kill, hurt, threaten, destroy, damage, hit, etc., etc, ad nauseum. I own guns. They are not tools like a hammer. They are deadly weapons to be treated with the utmost respect, and used with the greatest care and only in the rare (emphasis) but necessary extraordinary situation, hunting, or days at the range. You do not discuss them flippantly. Impressionable people might be listening. An insane person with a knife is one thing. A ignorant (dare I say Stupid?) person with a gun presents the same level of danger. An insane person with a gun is a horrible, but all too common occurrence. One who calls guns tools does not properly respect what he holds and should not be holding it. Tools accomplish constructive things (eg cut that rope, carve that lumber, assemble that gun). A gun pointed at anything is only necessary if you want to destroy it, or kill it. Either way if you're aiming a gun at it, you don't really care if it's intact after a round or two. Don't parrot NRA talking points and expect to come up with your own definitions for words like tool. They aren't open for interpretation.

Not sure at all about the NRA reference. I'm not a member of the organization. Again guns are designed to fire projectiles. After all if wasn't for the bullet. Then nobody would fear the gun. Guns in the hands of Americans built this country. They are used by police to maintain its laws. They are used by civilians to equalize the physically weak to the strong. They are used to feed people's families. If I were you I would take my own advice and wouldn't discuss flippantly the destruction of a God given right enshrined in the Bill of Rights by our founders. Impressionable people might be listening. After all an ignorant (dare I say Stupid?) mob whipped up by an agenda driven media and opportunistic politicians presents a level of danger greater than any type of firearm. If you have a problem with the definition then take it up with the Webster people not me. I'm glad you own guns. You probably own a hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife. All of those are tools just like a gun. But all are capable of being used to injure our destroy objects and people. They are all inanimate objects. The responsibility for their use or missuse is squarely on the shoulders of those who wield them. The tools themselves are incapable making that decision.

[alexava 6,974]

nuts who are trying to kill the most amount of innocent unsuspecting people in one instance dont use a" hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife." they use a high capacity assault weapon with multiple mags. and they do not fear the consequences so the responsibilty for their missuse is on the people we have elected as our leaders in preventing the fearless killers access to the "tools" that are most effective and devestating. that will inconveneince some of us and cost some of us but its nessessary.