11yr Old Shoots Home Invader

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-06-2015, 02:18 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Like I said, I wouldn't venture a guess because I don't know the kid.   My girls aren't using guns yet.   But we will be showing them the proper way to handle, transport, and Fire a gun.   At what age?  .....  That depends on a lot of factors.    

I don't think they are really into guns. Maybe my youngest will be more excited about it ...  idk.  My oldest is really careful and very deliberate.

But does she pretend to throw ice magic instead of bullets?

[Griever]

(09-07-2015, 02:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But does she pretend to throw ice magic instead of bullets?

no one uses ice magic anymore

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(09-08-2015, 10:45 AM)Griever Wrote: no one uses ice magic anymore

Yeah, SSF....you're so 2012.

[xxlt]

Since it seems part of the NRA ideology that all "good guys" should carry guns because whenever a "bad guy" pulls a gun or invades a home or does any other bad thing a good guy with a gun will always win the conflict that ensues if and only if he has a gun, here is my question.

Why don't the NRA and their advocates trot out story after story just like the one in the OP where a bad guy - in that case a teen committing a home invasion - was gunned down by a good guy?

It always seems to me there are not too many actual stories that fit their ideology as well as this one (and of course on further examination this one may not fit their ideology either, as some have already suggested).

Instead, it seems like there are a lot more true stories where the good guy accidentally shoots himself, intentionally shoots himself, accidentally shoots a family member or other good guy, intentionally shoots a family member or some other good guy, the good guy has the gun taken by a bad guy and used against him or someone else, or the good guy or a family member or a child accidentally or intentionally discharges the gun causing injury or death to an innocent person.

Every day we read about intentional and accidental shootings where the person (people) killed was (were) not "the bad guy(s)." So why aren't the NRA and other gun zealots unearthing and trumpeting as many or more stories of "the good guy" with his gun who saved the day and shot (or just scared off) "the bad guy." Is it because reality doesn't jibe with their ideology? Or are they just failing to communicate the actual stories that prove why all good guys should carry? And if so, why are they sitting on facts that would make their case?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-08-2015, 12:18 PM)xxlt Wrote: Since it seems part of the NRA ideology that all "good guys" should carry guns because whenever a "bad guy" pulls a gun or invades a home or does any other bad thing a good guy with a gun will always win the conflict that ensues if and only if he has a gun, here is my question.

Why don't the NRA and their advocates trot out story after story just like the one in the OP where a bad guy - in that case a teen committing a home invasion - was gunned down by a good guy?

It always seems to me there are not too many actual stories that fit their ideology as well as this one (and of course on further examination this one may not fit their ideology either, as some have already suggested).

Instead, it seems like there are a lot more true stories where the good guy accidentally shoots himself, intentionally shoots himself, accidentally shoots a family member or other good guy, intentionally shoots a family member or some other good guy, the good guy has the gun taken by a bad guy and used against him or someone else, or the good guy or a family member or a child accidentally or intentionally discharges the gun causing injury or death to an innocent person.

Every day we read about intentional and accidental shootings where the person (people) killed was (were) not "the bad guy(s)." So why aren't the NRA and other gun zealots unearthing and trumpeting as many or more stories of "the good guy" with his gun who saved the day and shot (or just scared off) "the bad guy." Is it because reality doesn't jibe with their ideology? Or are they just failing to communicate the actual stories that prove why all good guys should carry? And if so, why are they sitting on facts that would make their case?

Or it could be the "Mainstream Media" is left-of-center politically and wants to discredit the NRA whenever possible. Just sayin'.

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2015, 12:18 PM)xxlt Wrote: Since it seems part of the NRA ideology that all "good guys" should carry guns because whenever a "bad guy" pulls a gun or invades a home or does any other bad thing a good guy with a gun will always win the conflict that ensues if and only if he has a gun, here is my question.

Why don't the NRA and their advocates trot out story after story just like the one in the OP where a bad guy - in that case a teen committing a home invasion - was gunned down by a good guy?

It always seems to me there are not too many actual stories that fit their ideology as well as this one (and of course on further examination this one may not fit their ideology either, as some have already suggested).

Instead, it seems like there are a lot more true stories where the good guy accidentally shoots himself, intentionally shoots himself, accidentally shoots a family member or other good guy, intentionally shoots a family member or some other good guy, the good guy has the gun taken by a bad guy and used against him or someone else, or the good guy or a family member or a child accidentally or intentionally discharges the gun causing injury or death to an innocent person.

Every day we read about intentional and accidental shootings where the person (people) killed was (were) not "the bad guy(s)." So why aren't the NRA and other gun zealots unearthing and trumpeting as many or more stories of "the good guy" with his gun who saved the day and shot (or just scared off) "the bad guy." Is it because reality doesn't jibe with their ideology? Or are they just failing to communicate the actual stories that prove why all good guys should carry? And if so, why are they sitting on facts that would make their case?

Do you think the NRA would run with a story where a Muslim man shot and killed radical Christians who were harassing or threatening him?  Do you ever see a group of young black men armed with assault rifles plastered on the NRA's "everyone who isn't a criminal having a gun makes us safer" propaganda?  Maybe you do, but I rather doubt it because the NRA caters it's propaganda towards a certain demographic rather than the actual concept that more guns make people safer.

If Trayvon Martin had a gun and shot George Zimmerman would it be evidence that carrying a weapon is a great thing?  Meh, the whole "guns make you safer" is just another version of "don't diet, don't exercise, just take this pill and you'll magically lose weight!" because people don't want or can't process complex or difficult solutions to life's problems.

More Guns = More Safe

Now THAT'S just simple enough to get these people buying!  Print it.


END RANT

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2015, 01:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Or it could be the "Mainstream Media" is left-of-center politically and wants to discredit the NRA whenever possible. Just sayin'.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So then why are we saying that guns make people safer?  Don't people make people safer?

[CKwi88]

(09-08-2015, 12:18 PM)xxlt Wrote: Since it seems part of the NRA ideology that all "good guys" should carry guns because whenever a "bad guy" pulls a gun or invades a home or does any other bad thing a good guy with a gun will always win the conflict that ensues if and only if he has a gun, here is my question.

Why don't the NRA and their advocates trot out story after story just like the one in the OP where a bad guy - in that case a teen committing a home invasion - was gunned down by a good guy?

It always seems to me there are not too many actual stories that fit their ideology as well as this one (and of course on further examination this one may not fit their ideology either, as some have already suggested).

Instead, it seems like there are a lot more true stories where the good guy accidentally shoots himself, intentionally shoots himself, accidentally shoots a family member or other good guy, intentionally shoots a family member or some other good guy, the good guy has the gun taken by a bad guy and used against him or someone else, or the good guy or a family member or a child accidentally or intentionally discharges the gun causing injury or death to an innocent person.

Every day we read about intentional and accidental shootings where the person (people) killed was (were) not "the bad guy(s)." So why aren't the NRA and other gun zealots unearthing and trumpeting as many or more stories of "the good guy" with his gun who saved the day and shot (or just scared off) "the bad guy." Is it because reality doesn't jibe with their ideology? Or are they just failing to communicate the actual stories that prove why all good guys should carry? And if so, why are they sitting on facts that would make their case?

It's pretty much common knowledge that guns are much more likely to be involved in accidental or unlawful shootings than self defense.  

[Rotobeast]

(09-08-2015, 12:18 PM)xxlt Wrote: Since it seems part of the NRA ideology that all "good guys" should carry guns because whenever a "bad guy" pulls a gun or invades a home or does any other bad thing a good guy with a gun will always win the conflict that ensues if and only if he has a gun, here is my question.

Why don't the NRA and their advocates trot out story after story just like the one in the OP where a bad guy - in that case a teen committing a home invasion - was gunned down by a good guy?

It always seems to me there are not too many actual stories that fit their ideology as well as this one (and of course on further examination this one may not fit their ideology either, as some have already suggested).

Instead, it seems like there are a lot more true stories where the good guy accidentally shoots himself, intentionally shoots himself, accidentally shoots a family member or other good guy, intentionally shoots a family member or some other good guy, the good guy has the gun taken by a bad guy and used against him or someone else, or the good guy or a family member or a child accidentally or intentionally discharges the gun causing injury or death to an innocent person.

Every day we read about intentional and accidental shootings where the person (people) killed was (were) not "the bad guy(s)." So why aren't the NRA and other gun zealots unearthing and trumpeting as many or more stories of "the good guy" with his gun who saved the day and shot (or just scared off) "the bad guy." Is it because reality doesn't jibe with their ideology? Or are they just failing to communicate the actual stories that prove why all good guys should carry? And if so, why are they sitting on facts that would make their case?

Because it would be terrible form to celebrate the injury or death of a human being.
Regardless if it supported their agenda, they would be demonized and rightfully so.
Furthermore, I'm doubting that those situations where people are scared off are ever even reported.

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2015, 02:31 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Because it would be terrible form to celebrate the injury or death of a human being.
Regardless if it supported their agenda, they would be demonized and rightfully so.
Furthermore, I'm doubting that those situations where people are scared off are ever even reported.

Unless the person who was shot dead was trespassing or probably going to steal something, right?  Are you saying the NRA never celebrates the death of a human being?  I was pretty sure selling scenarios where you are blowing someone away because he/she was going to do something bad to you is their bread and butter.  I knew people who actually said they had catchphrases or clever things they were going to say before they pulled guns on people and/or shot them.  I kid you not.

[Rotobeast]

(09-08-2015, 02:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Unless the person who was shot dead was trespassing or probably going to steal something, right?  Are you saying the NRA never celebrates the death of a human being?  I was pretty sure selling scenarios where you are blowing someone away because he/she was going to do something bad to you is their bread and butter.  I knew people who actually said they had catchphrases or clever things they were going to say before they pulled guns on people and/or shot them.  I kid you not.

Well, if you look carefully at the end of the second sentence of my post, I said they deserve to be demonized, should they celebrate such a thing.

I can tell you this much, I hope and pray that I am NEVER in a situation where I even have to point a gun at anyone, let alone shoot someone.

BTW... I know that seems silly to you, given my avatar.
The avatar pic was taken as a goof and I thought it was funny.

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2015, 03:18 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Well, if you look carefully at the end of the second sentence of my post, I said they deserve to be demonized, should they celebrate such a thing.

I can tell you this much, I hope and pray that I am NEVER in a situation where I even have to point a gun at anyone, let alone shoot someone.

BTW... I know that seems silly to you, given my avatar.
The avatar pic was taken as a goof and I thought it was funny.

Yes, I obviously judge people's willingness to kill upon message board avatars.

[Rotobeast]

(09-08-2015, 05:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yes, I obviously judge people's willingness to kill upon message board avatars.

I was only implying you would appreciate the irony.

[fredtoast]

One of the biggest problems is that the loudest voices for gun ownership, the NRA, is a total shill for gun manufacturers. They oppose even the most reasonable and safety minded proposals.

The NRA has actually been very effective considering they only have 4.5 million members. There are tens of millions of people who eat up whatever the NRA puts out there.

The government is not going to take everyone's guns. We just need some common sense regulation. And I believe that if there was a politically neutral gun owners association it would also be in favor of reasonable regulations like registration and licensing.

You can't drive a car without proving you are not putting other people in danger. The same should be required to own something as deadly as a gun.

[*Nately120*]

(09-08-2015, 05:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One of the biggest problems is that the loudest voices for gun ownership, the NRA, is a total shill for gun manufacturers.  They oppose even the most reasonable and safety minded proposals.

The NRA has actually been very effective considering they only have 4.5 million members.  There are tens of millions of people who eat up whatever the NRA puts out there.

The government is not going to take everyone's guns.  We just need some common sense regulation.

Are you telling me the NRA's answer of "people need more guns" to every question may be driven by something other than altruism and truth!?

[Rotobeast]

(09-08-2015, 05:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One of the biggest problems is that the loudest voices for gun ownership, the NRA, is a total shill for gun manufacturers.  They oppose even the most reasonable and safety minded proposals.

The NRA has actually been very effective considering they only have 4.5 million members.  There are tens of millions of people who eat up whatever the NRA puts out there.

The government is not going to take everyone's guns.  We just need some common sense regulation.  And I believe that if there was a politically neutral gun owners association it would also be in favor of reasonable regulations like registration and licensing.

You can't drive a car without proving you are not putting other people in danger.  The same should be required to own something as deadly as a gun.

I actually agree with you, on your opinion of the NRA.
I also agree with the license, as people need to be proven competent.

(09-08-2015, 05:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Are you telling me the NRA's answer of "people need more guns" to every question may be driven by something other than altruism and truth!?

The NRA is a corrupt lobbying juggernaut.
Even when I was a member, they CONTINUALLY called with messages of doom and gloom, trying to pry more money out of me.

[jakefromstatefarm]

My daughter is 14 and she knows how to shoot. She learned gun safety first.

I'd rather teach her the right way to handle guns and how to shoot than to teach her that the way to combat rape is to vomit or urinate on herself.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/

A Colorado school has caused a stir with an advisory that suggested women could urinate or vomit to deter a rape.

The list of 10 tips by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs was billed as "last resort" options to deter a sexual assault.

"Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," read one tip.

"Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone," read another.

[xxlt]

(09-08-2015, 01:54 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It's pretty much common knowledge that guns are much more likely to be involved in accidental or unlawful shootings than self defense.  

Prediction: one or more people in this thread will observe you are just a pawn of the liberal media.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-09-2015, 12:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: My daughter is 14 and she knows how to shoot.  She learned gun safety first.

I'd rather teach her the right way to handle guns and how to shoot than to teach her that the way to combat rape is to vomit or urinate on herself.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/

A Colorado school has caused a stir with an advisory that suggested women could urinate or vomit to deter a rape.

The list of 10 tips by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs was billed as "last resort" options to deter a sexual assault.

"Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating," read one tip.

"Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone," read another.

We have been wondering when to start fire arms training with ours. How old was your daughter when you started?

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2015, 05:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yes, I obviously judge people's willingness to kill upon message board avatars.

I'd be brutal in a shield wall.