I still think overall, normal households should NOT have very powerful gun, such as AR-15 like, assault rifles.
But, on some occasions, such as this one, it may have actually helped save the householders from being harmed.
I guess in theory, a normal hand gun, would have equally well protected the household. But if the intruders had been armed with guns, the AR-15 like gun may have swung things in the householders favor.
The world you live in is an ugly dirty little place.That is why they are gullible enough to pledge their life to do whatever their corrupt government tells them to do, yes.
Can we count on you not talking about things you don't know about in the future?You don't say. From your previous post:
Very powerful? AR-15? Really? And of course, the term "assault rifle".
Goodness. People do not know about guns should not speak about guns.
The irony is stupefying.The world you live in is an ugly dirty little place.
I've put two quotes, as I think my reply answers both posts.
My understanding is that you are much more likely to be killed (and quickly), by assault rifles, compared to handguns. The handguns relatively lower power of each shot, means that surviving a particular shot is much more likely, than a high powered assault rifle.
Also assault rifles can fire many more bullets, in a limited time. With each shot being much more likely to kill, as well, statistically speaking.
Can we count on you not talking about things you don't know about in the future?
And AR-15 doesnt shoot a particularily powerful round. It is banned in most states for large game due to its lack of power. I'd say anything larger than a 38 in handgun calibers are more deadly than an AR-15(.223, 5.56). The advantage of the AR-15 is as you said the ability to fire many rounds on target. It is a very accurate gun within typical engagement ranges <200 yards. For home defense I wouldnt use it due to its penetrating power. Hate to miss and shoot my neighbors across the street. My 1911 will get the job done and not cause potential collateral damage. If I owned a shotgun would use that over the 1911.
Dude don't let yourself be fooled by anyone around here because they own guns. They don't know much about guns either because that's the purpose of the guns, to kill and or defend yourself without knowing really anything, just load the magazine and shoot.Thanks.
From reading more about the guns, it seems I should not have used the (often abused) term assault rifle. The press probably wants to call a gun an "assault rifle", just because it looks big and menacing. Whereas, things like if the gun supports fully automatic mode (and maybe burst fire mode), and other military weapon features, are probably more important.
Apparently the term "assault rifle" (which maybe should be called "assault weapon", anyway), has been so abused. That it is difficult to get agreement as to what it really does and should mean.
It seems I should never have brought up the AR-15 part of this discussion, and just stuck to the fact that a legal gun holder, while at their (or their parents) home, shot and killed some home intruders. Who apparently came equipped for a fight.
After watching that video. Apparently there have been a lot of house burglaries in that area, and they may have all been done by these four home invading crime team. If that turns out to be true (the Police are not sure yet), I will have even less sympathy for the criminals.
Dude don't let yourself be fooled by anyone around here because they own guns. They don't know much about guns either because that's the purpose of the guns, to kill and or defend yourself without knowing really anything, just load the magazine and shoot.
To be said one is knowledgeable about guns, one would have to be pretty good at understanding physics, chemistry and mechanics and their interactions related to gun's inner workings.
Being a gun nut doesn't really mean anything, everyone can just grab the gun and shoot because that's what guns are made for.
Unlike other self-defenses - martial arts and non-projectile weapons are difficult to master and require considerable skill acquired via long term training.
What they don't tell you is, they don't really stockpile guns because they are afraid or want to have means of defense, they want to posses power. If everyone would want to just defend themselves they would own one handgun, not closet full of shotguns and rifles.
I don't exactly know why/how. But here in the UK, we have very few guns and yet usually feel safe in our homes. Partly it is because we usually have fast responding (where necessary) and well equipped Police forces, crime rates are reasonably low and home invasions are usually very rare and (mostly) non-violent.
But I'm not exactly sure why there are these differences between the UK and the US.
But before someone jumps in to disagree. I agree that at times the UK also has bad/serious crimes including violent home invasions.
The problem (in my view) seems to be that allowing lots of guns into society, as well as helping defend householders, like in this case. Actually causes/allows many other gun related deaths, including mass shootings and worse terrorist acts, than if they had not had easy access to guns.
I thought a similar thing, even before your post. I agree, it would probably have had a similar outcome.
===============================================================================
tl;dr
Although gun(s) helped in this case, I worry about all the other gun incidents where innocent lives were taken.
however the UK reports convictions, the US reports incidents.
Two of the teenagers died inside the home and one ran outside before dying in the driveway.
So that is why we send 18 year old men into battle?
Umm, why is the driver being charged with murder?
Umm, why is the driver being charged with murder?
Felony murder statute most likely. Someone was killed during the commission of a crime. Even though it was her accomplices she can still be charged with murder under the law since death is a foreseeable outcome of attempting a burglary. Personally I think its a stretch and piling on, but these laws are very common in the US.
Felony murder statute most likely. Someone was killed during the commission of a crime. Even though it was her accomplices she can still be charged with murder under the law since death is a foreseeable outcome of attempting a burglary. Personally I think its a stretch and piling on, but these laws are very common in the US.
Considering the statute, coming in armed with knives and brass knuckles makes felony murder not a stretch. It would make it a stretch for them to seek the death penalty for the specific role she played in the burglary, being the getaway driver and not herself having an intent to kill.
While I don't specifically endorse death penalties, culpability is culpability. If she's on the hook the same way the 'true' perpetrators would be, then she'd be up for the same punishment. That might not be 'necessary' though, as we have about a dozen different terms for 'murder' based on what they want to pin on a person.
Something about the 8th amendment and the SCOTUS saying that for felony murder to result in death penalty they would have needed to have had an intent to kill or disregard for life in the role they played in the burglary. She was the getaway driver so the 8th amendment should protect her from death penalty.
I guess it brings into question, if she's willing to drive for someone who intends to take a life (maybe not that moment, but if they're walking into someone's home with a knife, they intend to if necessary), then isn't she showing a disregard by enabling that behavior? I mean, I'd consider the guy ferrying around whoever killed my son/daughter to have a disregard for their lives, if they knew something like that was likely to happen.