Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Video: Shooting Burglars

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JoJmoto
    replied
    More times then not, if you catch someone in your house, there will be violence if you have a firearm or not. I have seen many times unarmed victims get beat down and even stabbed because they either came home to someone inside or walked out on someone in thier house.

    Now the several cases that I have saw where the victim was armed, ended with the suspect either shot or dead. I have yet to work a home invasion where the armed victim was injured.

    Bottom line, if you own gun, you better be ready to use it when needed. Just like this guy said, his hesittion got him shot and nearly killed, not his firearm. How violent was this suspect? Well, he attacked a man with a gun while he himself was unarmed! Sounds like he would have taken action with the victim either way to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • StephDakel
    replied
    I think the video speaks for itself. It's kind of repetitive to state the obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by ChiCity View Post
    Your post pretty much summed up my thoughts exactly. Average Joe Homeowner shouldn't be allowed to own firearms if he is not properly trained. Otherwise you end up with people, like the poor guy in this video, who have firearms but don't know what to do with them, and end up getting hurt with their own guns.

    Where in "Shall not be infringed" do we get that people must have had formal training to own hand guns. Statistics aside the the bill of rights says nothing about gun knowlege or firearms or tactics training.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Show me where it says you have to have formal training before you can own a gun. Any law that is passed that states as much is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Hobbsie

    Leave a comment:


  • m1811
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiCity View Post
    In response to injunwill and bamacop's points on weapon retention and police being killed with their own weapons, I think that is a completely different animal considering the fact that most officers are required to spend the majority of their day carrying their weapon both on and off duty, and that most of those officers have to work with criminals on a daily basis, whereas the average citizen will never be victim to a burglary while they are at home.

    In response to Tucker6900, I can tell from your avatar that anything I say is about guns is going to be disagreed with, but I am going to explain my reasoning. Just like people receive training on how to drive a car before they get a license, I feel that they should receive training before they receive their license to own a gun. Here in Illinois, there are no hoops; as long as you can fill out a one page application (which basically is just the information on your driver's license), have $10, and aren't a felon, you can get your FOID, and subsequently buy a gun. There is a three day waiting period for handguns, 1 day waiting period for rifles and shotguns. And of course, if you live in the city of Chicago, you cannot own a handgun and will have to register your shotgun/rifle. I don't see what is so difficult about that, but that's not really my point.

    The crux of my argument is this: Law-abiding citizens who want to own guns are still going to jump through those hoops. As you validly point out, criminals who have no regard for the law will still obtain their guns without jumping through those hoops. So if we add another hoop, that being that the law-abiding citizens have to receive firearms training before they can obtain a gun, how does that hurt anything? Now we have law-abiding citizens with guns who know what to do with them, and criminals who don't. It seems to me that would be a deterrent to crime, but what do I know, I just a wishful lib.

    Anyway, I will defer to your wishes and I will never post on this subject again.
    It is better you keep posting. This way the disease called liberalism can be better exposed. It is the first paragraph that exposes your disconnect. Actually the police are no different than you in regards to being in the company of criminals. This incident is a perfect example. This average Joe minding his own business came home to confront a burglar. I notice you selectively forget he was assaulted and was bleeding from his head.

    Point is when you drive to work, go to the store, the movies etc. you are in the company of criminals. On average the guy standing next to you (about 10% of the time) is a convicted criminal, on probation/parole, or wanted. Hmmm, pretty alarming huh? Well that means 90% of the people you are surrounded by are decent law abiding citizens. The odds are in your favor you will never be a victim of a property crime or a crime of violence. But of course we cant predict the future.

    Common sense tells us to be vigilant. Your solution is to create more restrictions on gun ownership. MY solution is to leave the 2nd Amendment alone and allow ME to decide the best way to defend myself. I fail to see how more restrictions on gun ownership helps law abiding citizens be safer. In this case this guy lost the fight for the gun. There is no evidence this guy is a incompetent gun owner. You cant regulate one's ability to make a judgement call. That is where he failed. Making the decision to shoot sooner would have avoided him being shot. That in no way means we should take lessons in gun efficiency.

    By the way with your solution requiring citizens to take mandated lessons on proper gun use would have in no way have changed this incident. I can see it now, in addition to state mandated gun lessons all citizens must take state mandated lessons in gun retention before they ar epermitted to own a gun. See how silly it gets?

    Leave a comment:


  • KY Blue 72
    replied
    Originally posted by velobard View Post
    Poor comparison. Driving is a privilege. Using firearms for self-defense is a right, from the second amendment. The only state I know of that uses your method is Illinois, which ironically is where this guy is from.
    Yeah. I do think though that some people need to be a lot more responsible with their firearms and mandatory training couldn't hurt anyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • velobard
    replied
    Originally posted by KY Blue 72 View Post
    Maybe he is coming off wrong. I think I see his position and somewhat agree. I think it would be great if there was an organization in place similar to the DMV for firearms. Go through the course once, and then you can purchase as many firearms as you like as long as you have that firearms license. This could possibly prevent many incidents due to negligence of irresponsible firearm owners. This would also make those pesky liberals STFU. Just a thought.
    Poor comparison. Driving is a privilege. Using firearms for self-defense is a right, from the second amendment. The only state I know of that uses your method is Illinois, which ironically is where this guy is from.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoePublic
    replied
    Originally posted by djack16 View Post
    Yet another example of a person who unfortunately will require surgery to remove their head from their butt.

    About the resident...that's too bad. He's lucky to be alive.

    This liberal, like MANY OTHERS, sleeps with a firearm in his home and a wariness of his fellow man.

    Wishful, pacifist thinking is for wishful pacifists. That makes more sense.
    Hey liberal? ...
    Talking to you is a waste of EVERYONE'S time ...
    So consider this the last time anything I say is said in your direction okay ...
    Even if I say, "Liberal Democrat politicians are constantly trying to trample on the 2nd amendment, yet the MORON voter that votes them into office somehow claims to be pro-gun."
    Even if I say something like that, just assume I am talking about the "other liberals" that exist only in your head and don't respond about it.
    Save us all the time.

    Do NOT talk to me, EVER, period.
    Go get lost on ACLU's website or set up port-o-potties on top of sacred police ground ... either way, just go get lost somewhere else where you BELONG.

    Socialism and socialist have no place here ... so go invade a southern Asian nation and get out of my face forever.
    Last edited by JoePublic; 08-26-2008, 06:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • KY Blue 72
    replied
    Originally posted by velobard View Post
    According to his profile he's not a cop. He's a student and he lives in Chicago. Given the twisted politics of that city, combined with the mindset of many in academia that are passing along their indoctrination, I can't say I'm surprised by his position.
    Maybe he is coming off wrong. I think I see his position and somewhat agree. I think it would be great if there was an organization in place similar to the DMV for firearms. Go through the course once, and then you can purchase as many firearms as you like as long as you have that firearms license. This could possibly prevent many incidents due to negligence of irresponsible firearm owners. This would also make those pesky liberals STFU. Just a thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • velobard
    replied
    According to his profile he's not a cop. He's a student and he lives in Chicago. Given the twisted politics of that city, combined with the mindset of many in academia that are passing along their indoctrination, I can't say I'm surprised by his position.

    Leave a comment:


  • bamacop
    replied
    ChiCity let's look at it another way. We have the 2nd Amendment which acknowledges our right to own and bear arms. It isn't different than any of the others. Those are the rights that the gov has no business touching, end of story.
    As to your statement cops are around bad guys a lot more than the average citizen. Well, the reason you have a job is because the citizen you serve is the victim. Where are we the police 90% of the time when a crime is committed? The only one present are the victim and the criminal. The guy in this video just didn't have it in him to pull the trigger. And you know what? There are some dead cops out there who could not bring themselves to pull the trigger too.
    Quick question. Are you a cop? I am. If so you need to remember one thing. You are a public servant. What that means and many seem to forget is that you are a servant of the people. Now what gives the servant (not just cops)more rights to self defense than the citizen...your boss?
    I will never understand big city cops who think that they alone are the safest with weapons. Maybe if yall didn't have such draconian gun laws you would be surprised to see that some of the best shooters out there are ordinary citizens. Most get more trigger time at the range than a police officer.
    Not trying to start a ****ing contest with you, this is just my point of view, and think its worth discussing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tucker6900
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiCity View Post
    In response to Tucker6900, I can tell from your avatar that anything I say is about guns is going to be disagreed with,
    Not neccessarily. Dont take my avatar as a sign the Im the "Lets give everyone and anyone guns". Im a firm believer in proper training and etiquette while in possession of any firearms.

    You know what. This issue has been talked about on here already, and Im sure the O.Com regulars are tired of hearing it. I made my point.
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 08-26-2008, 02:37 PM. Reason: Edit content

    Leave a comment:


  • velobard
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiCity View Post
    He got shot with his own gun. If he didn't own a gun, he wouldn't have gotten shot. He is lucky he didn't die. I already know that everyone on this forum is going to jump on me for saying this, but this man's case is a perfect example of why I believe we should have more restrictions on gun ownership in our country, not less.
    ROFL!!!

    Yeah, right.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiCity
    replied
    In response to injunwill and bamacop's points on weapon retention and police being killed with their own weapons, I think that is a completely different animal considering the fact that most officers are required to spend the majority of their day carrying their weapon both on and off duty, and that most of those officers have to work with criminals on a daily basis, whereas the average citizen will never be victim to a burglary while they are at home.

    In response to Tucker6900, I can tell from your avatar that anything I say is about guns is going to be disagreed with, but I am going to explain my reasoning. Just like people receive training on how to drive a car before they get a license, I feel that they should receive training before they receive their license to own a gun. Here in Illinois, there are no hoops; as long as you can fill out a one page application (which basically is just the information on your driver's license), have $10, and aren't a felon, you can get your FOID, and subsequently buy a gun. There is a three day waiting period for handguns, 1 day waiting period for rifles and shotguns. And of course, if you live in the city of Chicago, you cannot own a handgun and will have to register your shotgun/rifle. I don't see what is so difficult about that, but that's not really my point.

    The crux of my argument is this: Law-abiding citizens who want to own guns are still going to jump through those hoops. As you validly point out, criminals who have no regard for the law will still obtain their guns without jumping through those hoops. So if we add another hoop, that being that the law-abiding citizens have to receive firearms training before they can obtain a gun, how does that hurt anything? Now we have law-abiding citizens with guns who know what to do with them, and criminals who don't. It seems to me that would be a deterrent to crime, but what do I know, I just a wishful lib.

    Anyway, I will defer to your wishes and I will never post on this subject again.
    Last edited by ChiCity; 08-26-2008, 01:22 PM. Reason: typos

    Leave a comment:


  • Tucker6900
    replied
    Originally posted by LA DEP View Post
    This was mainly a mind set issue....the guy had not made the decision BEFORE he had to use the weapon that he could actually point it at another human being, and turn them into a pile of rapidly cooling meat......

    The time to decide whether you can use deadly force or not is NOT when you are staring over your sights at the suspect....
    +100,000 LA DEP!

    If you own a gun for self defense, and are not willing to take another life to do so, then sell that gun, move closer to a police department, and leave it to the pros.

    Leave a comment:


  • bamacop
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiCity View Post
    He got shot with his own gun. If he didn't own a gun, he wouldn't have gotten shot. He is lucky he didn't die. I already know that everyone on this forum is going to jump on me for saying this, but this man's case is a perfect example of why I believe we should have more restrictions on gun ownership in our country, not less.
    Well I guess that means we police officers need restrictions on handguns as well, since many of us are killed with our own weapons.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5428 users online. 331 members and 5097 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X