AR15 saves life of New York students

[Orignal Earl]

Yikes! You are in South Africa? Zimbabwe? Have to disagree with the bolded as it's mostly false I think.

New Orleans and Detroit are more dangerous then anywhere in Africa
North and South America have the most dangerous cities in the world

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1

 

[irishScott]

It can do good but in the wrong hands it also probably has a greater capacity to do more harm (in the amount of people shot) than a typical shotgun. Sure there are more "exotic" shotguns than the typical shotgun that is in the popular imagination but overall if you are one of those rare insane people planning on a mass shooting the ease of reloading a shotgun vs. reloading a magazine fed firearm might be a consideration.

Which is why you institute measures to filter those people out. Granted no system is perfect but allowing a law abiding, proficient, non-crazy citizen to own a gun is well worth the minute amount of death that results from the few who slip through the cracks.

The issue is that we have politicians worried about their jobs, we need Constitutionalists (the concept, not the 3rd party) worried about solving problems.

 

[cave_dweller]

New Orleans and Detroit are more dangerous then anywhere in Africa
North and South America have the most dangerous cities in the world

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1

I do not know where they get their information from but the South African police are hiding stats from the public and the international community.

The proportional murder rates per 100,000 of the different SA population groups are broken down as follows
200 murders for every 100,000 white farmers; 100 murders out of every 100,000 whites;
40 murders out of every 100,000 coloured and Asian people; and
30 murders out of every 100,000 blacks:
http://afrikaner-genocide-achives.b...-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00+01:00&max-results=50

If you look through that site you will see links and names of the people that have been murdered.

While government, through the release of these figures, claims that murder is said to be in decline, not everyone agrees. A recent report by the Medical Research Council (MRC) states otherwise. While police crime statistics show there were 21,683 murders in 2000, the MRC puts the figure at 32,482. The MRC's estimate is close to the figure from the Department of Home Affairs, which is 30,068. This is a third more murders than reported by the SAPS. A discrepancy of more than 10,000 murders is more than a ”margin of error”.

The MRC's revelation of serious under-registration and misclassification in the government's death statistics was gleaned from various sources, including the National Injury Mortality Surveillance System, a body supported by the Department of Health and the Department of Science and Technology. The system gathers information on “non-natural” deaths from 37 mortuaries in six provinces (note that South Africa now has nine provinces). The cause-of-death profile estimated in their study "differs substantially from the findings of the sample of death records processed by Stats SA for 1997-2001", the MRC reports reads (The Sunday Independent, Shock report doubles road death toll, May 25 2003).
According to a brochure “Fight Crime: Put 150,000 cops on the streets where you live”, produced by the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA) the average daily murder rate in South Africa is 55 murders committed every day. However, if we use the MRC statistics, there are 89 murders committed on average every day in South Africa.

http://www.frontline.org.za/Files/PDF/murder_southafrica (5).pdf

Have a look at this

Murder on white people during and after the World Cup. The International community are being dooped. New Orleans do not come close to South Africa.

 

[Orignal Earl]

http://www.frontline.org.za
http://afrikaner-genocide-achives.blogspot.de

I don't know....businessinsider seems a little less bias, compared to those sites

 

[ivwshane]

Let me see if I understand the logic here:

Gun used to thwart attacker = good reason why guns should be legal or why certain types of guns shouldn't be banned.


Attacker used gun to kill 26 people =! good reason for gun control?

Same coin different side, both pretty stupid arguments.

 

[silverpig]

1. Right, because being knocked out or tied up as your apartment is robbed, or being killed, is a small price to pay for that burglar's life!

2. No, it likely didn't have to be an AR-15. So what? The point is an AR-15 in the right hands can do good. There is no rational reason a civilian shouldn't be able to own one. There are only irrational, emotional, and philosophical reasons. If the government has no right to legislate vegetarianism, they have no right to legislate that I cannot own an AR-15 under any circumstances.

1. The OP claimed the rifle saved their lives. The robbers likely had a BB gun. I really doubt they would have killed the guys.

2. A nuke in the right hands can do good too. The point is you go with the least dangerous deterrent for your average joe, just because you want to limit crazy people's access to those same deterrents for nefarious purposes.

 

[olds]

1. The OP claimed the rifle saved their lives. The robbers likely had a BB gun. I really doubt they would have killed the guys.

2. A nuke in the right hands can do good too. The point is you go with the least dangerous deterrent for your average joe, just because you want to limit crazy people's access to those same deterrents for nefarious purposes.

They dropped some BBs while they were putting the Uzis under their jackets.

 

[blankslate]

Which is why you institute measures to filter those people out. Granted no system is perfect but allowing a law abiding, proficient, non-crazy citizen to own a gun is well worth the minute amount of death that results from the few who slip through the cracks.

The issue is that we have politicians worried about their jobs, we need Constitutionalists (the concept, not the 3rd party) worried about solving problems.

I definitely agree with the part bolded. However, the people in the article that the OP posted could just as well have defended themselves with a pump action shotgun.

Whereas the OP seemed to imply that the NY AR-15 ban would remove from residents the means to defend themselves in similar circumstances.
Sorry that is not the case if that actually is his stance.

Then I saw your post as well so I edited that into my post as well.

 

[irishScott]

1. The OP claimed the rifle saved their lives. The robbers likely had a BB gun. I really doubt they would have killed the guys.

2. A nuke in the right hands can do good too. The point is you go with the least dangerous deterrent for your average joe, just because you want to limit crazy people's access to those same deterrents for nefarious purposes.

1. So you'd bet people's lives on the presumed non-lethal intentions and personal responsibility of a burglar. Got it. There are a lot of graves you can tell that to.

2. Relating an AR-15 to a nuke should be Godwin's second law. What you do is implement filters to filter out the responsible from the irresponsible. Otherwise you're saying that I and tens of millions of others are on the same level as the Sandy Hook killer, which is both patently false and insulting.

 

[silverpig]

1. So you'd bet people's lives on the presumed non-lethal intentions and personal responsibility of a burglar. Got it. There are a lot of graves you can tell that to.

2. Relating an AR-15 to a nuke should be Godwin's second law. What you do is implement filters to filter out the responsible from the irresponsible. Otherwise you're saying that I and tens of millions of others are on the same level as the Sandy Hook killer, which is both patently false and insulting.

1. I wasn't betting anything. There is absolutely nothing to support the presumption that this incident saved a life. The robbers likely didn't have a lethal weapon. There is no basis for that claim at all.

2. Then scale it back. You don't need an AR-15 to defend your home. Making AR-15s legal in addition to bolt- or pump-action weapons doesn't enhance your ability to defend your own home, and only goes to increase access to those weapons for real criminals.

 

[spidey07]

1. I wasn't betting anything. There is absolutely nothing to support the presumption that this incident saved a life. The robbers likely didn't have a lethal weapon. There is no basis for that claim at all.

2. Then scale it back. You don't need an AR-15 to defend your home. Making AR-15s legal in addition to bolt- or pump-action weapons doesn't enhance your ability to defend your own home, and only goes to increase access to those weapons for real criminals.

An AR-15 is simply the best home defense weapon there is (along with tons of other semi-auto rifles). Lots of ammunition, quality rifle round, accurate. It greatly enhances your ability to defend your home and family.

The bolt or pump action shotgun would be FAR out shadowed by a capable semi-auto rifle with lots of rounds. That is a fact.

From a home and life defense perspective it is accepted fact that semi-auto rifle (with plenty of ammo) > shotgun > pistol.

 

[silverpig]

An AR-15 is simply the best home defense weapon there is (along with tons of other semi-auto rifles). Lots of ammunition, quality rifle round, accurate. It greatly enhances your ability to defend your home and family.

The bolt or pump action shotgun would be FAR out shadowed by a capable semi-auto rifle with lots of rounds. That is a fact.

From a home and life defense perspective it is accepted fact that semi-auto rifle (with plenty of ammo) > shotgun > pistol.

And a safe room + nerve gas is probably even better...

It's not about what's "better", it's about what is necessary.

 

[kage69]

New Orleans and Detroit are more dangerous then anywhere in Africa
North and South America have the most dangerous cities in the world

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1

Tell that to white farmers down there!
Can't say I agree with your wording either, you are using cities on a list in comparison to "anywhere in Africa." This Detroit native isn't confused as to the risk involved in either of those cities (spent too much time in New Orleans as well), but if I had the choice of dealing with either inner city American/South American thugs versus the kind of groups that operate in the bush out of certain African areas? I'll take G-Dog and his baggy clothed friends thanks. They tend to carry fewer machetes, automatic rifles and RPGs.

I asked because of his comment on that pic, where the pic came from, his grammar, and his mention of injuries. It seemed as if he could be referring to the area. Wasn't trying to vilify Africa at all.

 

[spidey07]

And a safe room + nerve gas is probably even better...

It's not about what's "better", it's about what is necessary.

No, it has never been about what is "necessary" or "need". It is about what can I best utilize to protect myself and my family. Currently that is a semi-auto rifle, with lots of ammo and a quality round.

That is my god given natural right and in my country that right shall NOT be infringed.

 

[irishScott]

1. I wasn't betting anything. There is absolutely nothing to support the presumption that this incident saved a life. The robbers likely didn't have a lethal weapon. There is no basis for that claim at all.

2. Then scale it back. You don't need an AR-15 to defend your home. Making AR-15s legal in addition to bolt- or pump-action weapons doesn't enhance your ability to defend your own home, and only goes to increase access to those weapons for real criminals.

1. More people per year die from fists than AR-15s, and a crowbar, baseball bat or whatever they used to smash that window open could very easily be a lethal weapon. If someone breaks into your house, you assume they're willing to kill you.

2. The right to gun ownership in the US isn't just about the right to self defense, but I'd rather not open that can of worms, again. Even if it were all about self defense, millions of responsible owners take precedence over what, 2 psychos per year who actually take advantage of the weapon's extended capabilities.

 

[Fenixgoon]

1. I wasn't betting anything. There is absolutely nothing to support the presumption that this incident saved a life. The robbers likely didn't have a lethal weapon. There is no basis for that claim at all.

2. Then scale it back. You don't need an AR-15 to defend your home. Making AR-15s legal in addition to bolt- or pump-action weapons doesn't enhance your ability to defend your own home, and only goes to increase access to those weapons for real criminals.

1. "likely didn't have a lethal weapon" which means you don't know. and if they're pointing that weapon at you, you dont know whether it's lethal or not. therefore, you *are* gambling if you make an assumption that the weapon is not lethal.

2. it isn't about needing a firearm. it's about the right to own a firearm, which is written into the constitution. semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 are very popular and commonly used. oddly enough, they are arguably less lethal than many other firearms you could legally own and just as easily purchase (but wait, those firearms aren't painted black!). maybe i live on a farm, in which case an AR-15 is (among many other rifles) an ideal firearm for hunting small game and varmint. Or maybe I just enjoy shooting it.

rifles and shotguns can be excellent home defense weapons. shotguns in particular excel at close-quarters combat, making them a great choice for home defense. maybe i grew up shooting shotguns and rifles and am therefore most comfortable defending my home with one, as opposed to a compact-sized pistol.

so what do i *NEED*, and how do you make that determination?

no one needs a 662hp mustang, a 580hp camaro, a 550hp CTS, a 640hp corvette, etc. but ford and GM make them, and people buy them. and you can damn well bet that if you banned all cars over 200hp because some kid wrecked a ferrari in a street race and died (the equivalent of an AWB), the auto-enthusiast community would go just as strongly defensive as the firearms community is now.

and please provide proof that sale of shotguns and rifles are widely used in crime. according to FBI statistics, about 8000 homicides were committed with handguns. less than 1000 were committed with shotguns and rifles combined.

 

[spidey07]

I bet it freaks him out that in my state, just the person entering (or attempting to enter) my home illegally means I can, by law, assume they are there to harm me or any lawful resident and can shoot them at will.

 

[xj0hnx]

1. The OP claimed the rifle saved their lives. The robbers likely had a BB gun. I really doubt they would have killed the guys.

1. I wasn't betting anything. There is absolutely nothing to support the presumption that this incident saved a life. The robbers likely didn't have a lethal weapon. There is no basis for that claim at all.

Having the advantage of hindsight doesn't make you right. There was no way to know at the time that they had a BB gun, if they did have a BB gun. Your statement is just about as stupid as any made on this forum. If they had called his bluff, and beat him to death you'd feel pretty stupid for making that statement.

 

[momeNt]

Honestly could do without seeing that picture this morning, cave dweller.

Anyway, the guy in NY did it without any ammunition, as it was unloaded. Not sure if this is an argument for ARs or against their mag sizes, since not only did he not need 7 rounds, but he didn't even need one.

I made this argument in a previous thread, I believe that they should simply ban live-fire ammunition. The sight of the gun and hearing the shot is enough to scare 99.9% of criminals. The small .1% of criminals that won't let up until they are shot is a small price to pay if it will save the lives of many who misuse guns and are not ambitious enough to seek live-fire ammunition from the black markets.

 

[irishScott]

I bet it freaks him out that in my state, just the person entering (or attempting to enter) my home illegally means I can, by law, assume they are there to harm me or any lawful resident and can shoot them at will.

Seems to be a Canadian thing, in a sorta good way. I've talked to Canadians who say if someone broke into their house (and they weren't there) they'd assume the community would take steps to correct the problem and stop people from stealing, and other stuff I'd found incomprehensible.

They just don't get how non-homogenous our society is.

 

[pauldun170]

replace the AR-15 with any pistol or shotgun and you'd have had the same outcome, because they had a bb gun.
Assault rifles not being necessary for self-defense isn't enough of a reason to ban them though, maybe someone likes shooting at the range.

This

 

[momeNt]

Seems to be a Canadian thing, in a sorta good way. I've talked to Canadians who say if someone broke into their house (and they weren't there) they'd assume the community would take steps to correct the problem and stop people from stealing, and other stuff I'd found incomprehensible.

They just don't get how non-homogenous our society is.

Just put all you valuables outside your home when you are gone and during the night and then nobody would break in.

There are multiple approaches to solving the problem!

 

[spidey07]

My wife explains it best to her mostly female work friends (all highly liberal).

Would you rather have a capable weapon to kill or disable the intruders or would you rather have to fumble with a reload in your sheer terror and panic. Do you think you could do that, have magazines at the ready, to defend yourself? Are you that well trained that you could reload under that kind of panic and stress?

That tends to change their mind right quick.

Especially when she says. Oh. Think about your kids as well.

 

[Alex C]

An AR-15 is simply the best home defense weapon there is (along with tons of other semi-auto rifles). Lots of ammunition, quality rifle round, accurate. It greatly enhances your ability to defend your home and family.

The bolt or pump action shotgun would be FAR out shadowed by a capable semi-auto rifle with lots of rounds. That is a fact.

From a home and life defense perspective it is accepted fact that semi-auto rifle (with plenty of ammo) > shotgun > pistol.

This is a fact widely agreed upon by self defense experts. A semi-auto rifle in an intermediate caliber is easier to aim and will stop a threat more reliably than a pistol, and is more accurate and precise with much less recoil than a shotgun. Remember, you are responsible for every one of those shotgun pellets. The semi-auto, if loaded with soft point ammunition, it is also less likely to penetrate walls, which is especially important if you live with others or have neighbors close by. The ability to aim and fire successive shots quickly becomes important if the threat is shooting back, doubly so if there are multiple threats.

There are other benefits to them as well; people of smaller stature have a great deal of trouble finding long guns that fit them properly, and the adjustable stocks frequently found on AR-15s eliminate that problem. The rails found on most "assault weapons" make attaching a light as simple as possible, which encourages proper target identification, thereby reducing the likelihood of accidentally shooting someone you know. The semi-automatic action minimizes user error; there is no fumbling for the bolt in the dark or short stroking because you're panicked. You can also operate them with one hand should you become injured, have to assist children or move somebody to safety, or just need to open a door.

Having a 30 round magazine effectively means you will not have to reload; the 4-6 rounds held by most shotguns and revolvers and 10 round magazines the ban would require don't guarantee that. The police hit ratio is on average between 20-30%. These are people professionally trained to respond to high stress life and death situations with firearms. Using the low end of the police hit ratio to represent the average gun owner (I'd wager most gun enthusiasts would do better, but most gun owners don't practice that frequently so maybe they'd even be worse?), this is how'd they do with the following weapons:

Pump Action Shotgun - 4 Round Capacity (the basic Remington 870, one of the most popular shotguns, comes standard with a 4 round magazine): 20% of 4 rounds is .8 hits. This means that on average, one would empty the entire magazine and not hit the target.

Revolver - 6 Round Capacity: 1.2 hits before reloading. Lets keep in mind that a hit is not guaranteed to stop the threat, and multiple assailants is a possibility.

Ban Compliant Semi-Automatic - 10 Round Capacity: 2.0 hits. This is much better than the previous options, but that's still not a reassuring number. Frequently in fatal police shootings, the criminal is shot a seemingly excessive number of times. This is because police are trained to shoot until the person is no longer a threat. In a study conducted in Portland in the early 90's, they found the average person fatally shot by police was hit 9.3 times. This means they hit them twice, and still deemed that person a threat. Maybe all 9 weren't necessary in all cases, but that should raise enough doubt that 2 hits and thus 10 round magazines will always be enough for a law abiding citizen to defend his or her self.

Most of the advantages to "assault weapons" are heavily weighted in favor of self defense, compared to mass shooting. The mass shooter is prepared for the situation he (so far they've all been a he) creates; he has planned for it and isn't fearing for his life. He likely isn't going to experience the same overwhelming panic, adrenalin dump, and loss of fine motor functions attack victims experience. Thus, manipulating the weapon, whether it be for reloading or operating a bolt or pump, is going to be a minor inconvenience for him whereas it could be disastrous in a self defense situation.

His targets are not aggressively advancing on him, they are running away, trapped, or cowering. There is no reason to rush, so rapid fire is not a necessity. He is in complete control of the situation; he can take time to aim, reload, or even pick his nose if he wants to. The VT shooter reloaded over a dozen times. Until police arrive, they have all the time in the world. This most recent shooting lasted about 10 minutes; in that time 26 people were killed. That is one death every thirty seconds. There is not a firearm made in the last 100 years that isn't capable of doing that in a room full of defenseless children. The only limiting factors when you have that much time is your skill and how much ammunition you can carry.

 

[silverpig]

Having the advantage of hindsight doesn't make you right. There was no way to know at the time that they had a BB gun, if they did have a BB gun. Your statement is just about as stupid as any made on this forum. If they had called his bluff, and beat him to death you'd feel pretty stupid for making that statement.

Revising history to make a point not only doesn't make the OP right, it makes him flat out wrong.

And you guys are right - I just don't get it.

Canadians have quite a few guns, but they are mostly for hunters. All of the friends I know who hunt do so with bolt-action rifles, and almost never keep them in their homes. The ones that do keep them in the basement, locked in a trunk, with no thought to ever making them accessible in case a burglar came in.

There is no culture or need here to have weapons for home defense, because it generally isn't an issue.

The guys who wrote the constitution were pretty amazing and got a lot of things right. The proof is in the pudding and America is a great nation because of it. They weren't perfect however, and were still humans who made mistakes. I think the 2nd is not an outright mistake, but something that wouldn't have been written as it was if they had the ability to see what the future held.

But you guys have it mostly right, 99% of gun owners are mostly responsible, and being able to defend yourself in your own home is a good thing. I just think that countries like Japan, with strict gun laws and extremely low gun crime rates have done it better.

For the record, I also think 300 hp+ cars are unnecessary, and while I wouldn't outright ban them, for the sake of energy conservation and pollution reduction, I would hope people would make a choice to not use them. My wife and I had a VW Rabbit for a few years, and now we don't have a car at all.