Teen uses AR-15 to defend his home

[_bcspace]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI

[_Quasimodo]

A shot gun would have worked as well (maybe better). So would a deer rifle. Of course, if he had used hand grenades it would have made a better story for you.

[_krose]

Teen uses AR-15 to defend his home

Well, then. That completely justifies that other young man taking the same weapon into a first grade classroom and pumping multiple rounds each into twenty six-year-olds.

It's just another price of freedom. Thanks.

[_ludwigm]

A California boy has been found responsible for murder in the shooting death of his neo-Nazi father at age 10.

The ruling means that the boy, now 12, could be sent to a juvenile prison until age 23.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21017058 ( 14 January 2013 Last updated at 20:15 GMT )

[_Drifting]

I see bcspace believes the solution to too many deaths being caused by people carrying guns, is to have more people carrying guns...

Ponder on this; if nobody carried a gun how many people would be killed by people carrying guns?

[_Molok]

del

[_Droopy]

A shot gun would have worked as well (maybe better). So would a deer rifle. Of course, if he had used hand grenades it would have made a better story for you.

In other words, you are against any right or capacity of self-defense for the individual citizen.

[_Droopy]

Teen uses AR-15 to defend his home

Well, then. That completely justifies that other young man taking the same weapon into a first grade classroom and pumping multiple rounds each into twenty six-year-olds.

It's just another price of freedom. Thanks.

Yes, absolutely! If I come home from work and find my wife being gang raped by a group of ax-wielding 200lb thugs who broke down the door, axed my dog, and went for my wife, and if I, having my AR-15 with me, shoot and kill/wound these men, then this logically justifies me going into my local grade school and killing 30 children for kicks on a Saturday afternoon. Absolutely Krose! The one just follows inferentially from the other like a well calibrated Swiss watch.

You're critical thinking abilities are so brilliant, Krose, that I need to put on sunglasses when I answer any of your intellectually shining posts.

Well done.

[_Droopy]

I see bcspace believes the solution to too many deaths being caused by people carrying guns, is to have more people carrying guns...

So do must rational, intelligent adults who tend to think with their minds rather than attempting to think with their emotions, or conflating the two.

Ponder on this; if nobody carried a gun how many people would be killed by people carrying guns?

Ponder this: if nobody used cocaine, marijuana, meth, hashish, or heroin, there would be no addiction or social pathology associated with the use/abuse of these drugs. After decades of a war on drugs, what is the status of America in this sense? How many people who want to use drugs, irrespective of the laws and punishments inflicted by the law upon those who do, use them anyway?

Obvious conclusion #1: a full and total ban on guns, were this to become law, would mean nothing other than the total disarmament of the entire law-abiding civilian population, leaving the criminal element, which would never be disarmed and would, by definition, not obey gun laws, no matter how far reaching, free to terrorize and victimize that population at will, with little if any fear of any legitimately effective defensive measures by their victims even being possible.

This would be tantamount, especially in certain neighborhoods and localities, of every citizen placing a sign in his front yard saying "I have no means of personal self defense. Please home invade me."

"Attention: this school is gun free. All unbalanced psycho's please go somewhere else as there will be no one to stop you until the police arrive."

[_Quasimodo]

A shot gun would have worked as well (maybe better). So would a deer rifle. Of course, if he had used hand grenades it would have made a better story for you.

In other words, you are against any right or capacity of self-defense for the individual citizen.

? Not at all. I was saying that one does not need military weapons to defend oneself.

Are you saying that all weapons should be legal? An RPG might be an effective weapon to repel a mob breaking into your house, but you would destroy your house using it. Land mines in your hallway would slow them down, too (you just need to remember where you put them). Flamethrowers? Rocket launchers to deter bad guys attacking your house in helicopters?