So Gungeoneers, is there any instance of a mother protecting her home with an AR15?

[jpak]

[iiibbb]

1. Why does it have to be a woman/mother?

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2012/oct/02/stephens-sheriff-resident-shot-one-of-four-home/


AR-15 is inherently easier to control than a shotgun or handgun.

[jpak]

4. Because one of the stupid gun nuts that testified at the Senate hearing yesterday

fantasizes about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/gayle-trotter-gun-control_n_2583098.html

I think she is fucking nuts.

Yup

[Remmah2]

5. Keep in mind the definition of assault weapons is inclusive of many handguns with 15 round magazines

eom

[gejohnston]

2. so banners,

is there any instance of a mother protecting her home with a flintlock?

[Remmah2]

3. Are there instances of unarmed home owners dieing?

The funny thing about the dead, everyone pretends to speak for them. Some of them still collect Social Security.

My question to a dead person who died of violent causes, "What would you do differently?"

[phantom power]

6. There was this guy's wife:

His wife at home defending herself and family with an AKM (photo below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=101079

I don't, personally, think that the existence of situations where somebody used military-style weaponry to defend themselves equals a great argument that we should be allowed to have them. For example, in this story, a good old fashioned shotgun would also work just fine. But either way, I don't doubt that it happens at some non-zero frequency.

[Eleanors38]

7. No, doesn't count, out if fashion. It's an AR, now.

by

[jpak]

10. Police report?

and I am the King of Spain.

[DonP]

11. This from a guy that refuses to ever support a single assertion - LOL!!!

[jpak]

12. Someone makes up shit on DU - some believe it

A link to a news story or a police report is believable.

Made up shit is not.

Yessah

[jpak]

19. That's not a nice thing to say

[DonP]

22. Not nice ... but accurate as anything ever said on these boards.

[jpak]

37. LOL!

?w=300

[krispos42]

8. Probably.

Bear in mind that "protecting" does not necessarily mean the gun was fired, the police were informed, the media reported it, or that the creature she was protecting her family from was human.

[ileus]

9. Why deny a mother her ability to protect her family.

Way the sudden urgency to make more willing victims?

We need modern tools for saving lives not old outdated tools.

[jpak]

13. Yeah - a .38 revolver can't do the job anymore

[gejohnston]

14. that is next on the ban list, oh wait

it was first on the ban list until "assault weapons" branches started sagging closer to the ground.

[jpak]

15. Why yes - yes it is.

Don't look outside.

The Black Helicopters are circling.

[gejohnston]

16. no helos, just know history

been there, saw it, and remember when Chicago and DC passed their laws.

[jimmy the one]

21. politifact on DC handgun ban

ge johnston: no helos, just know history
.. been there, saw it, and remember when Chicago and DC passed their laws.

What happened when DC & chicago passed their (gun control) laws? You imply things got drastically worse in Wash DC, when compared with the rest of the country & big cities, when things went about the same.

Politifact (spot on this time): D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws in the country", said Marco Rubio Jan. 17, 2013. "And when they passed them, violence skyrocketed."
PF rules ---- Violent crime rates in DC from 1976 look like a rockin’ roller coaster, dipping slightly after the ban’s passage, climbing steadily until the early ‘80s, diving again through the late ‘80s, then climbing a steep mountain until the early ‘90s.
Then violent crime, as in the rest of the country, fell steeply, settling into a slower cruise downward since the start of the new century.

ALL while the handgun ban was in effect, so explain yourself johnston, & explain why pro gun memphis tennessee has a higher violent crime rate & pro gun richmond virginia a higher murder rate.

here's more gunnut propaganda from shapiro in WSJ: The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
--- But Shapiro cited the annual homicide number for 1993 — the height of {national} violent crime in the four decades we’re examining — then later says: Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. He fails to mention that drop started in 1994. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/28/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-after-dc-passed-gun-laws-viol/

Yeah, shapiro, you too johnston, DC murders FELL from a high of 454 in 1993 to 186 in 2008, all while the handgun ban was in effect.
And Shapiro's FOS anyway, the DC handgun ban was enacted to blunt predominantly young black males who were using handguns to commit the new wave of violent crimes in DC in late 70's - handguns were plentiful in DC & would not have 'emboldened' anyone any more than they already were since guns could be easily smuggled in from maryland. The ban gave police the ability to arrest guntoters on the spot without equivocation.

So you all are just content to blither away from the 2ndAmendment mythology bible, oblivious to the truth, just spitting out half truths & misinformed disinformation, & who cares, you get checked today you'll be back somewhere else in a month, spitting out the same half truths & misinformation.
You say we need remember history johnston, why don't you? instead of implying 'revisionist history'?

Related rulings: "One out of every five law enforcement officers that's killed is killed with an assault weapon." Dianne Feinstein, Sunday, Jan 27th, 2013.
Ruling: Mostly True

[gejohnston]

23. DC followed the same rate as the rest of the US

Despite being the headquarters of multiple federal law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the nationwide crack epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s greatly affected the city and led to massive increases in crime.[1] The number of homicides in Washington peaked in 1991 at 479,[2] and the city eventually became known as the "murder capital" of the United States.[3]
The crime rate started to fall in the mid 1990s as the crack epidemic gave way to economic revitalization projects. Gentrification efforts have also started to transform the demographics of distressed neighborhoods, recently leading to the first rise in the District's population in 60 years.[4]
By the mid-2000s, crime rates in Washington dropped to their lowest levels in over 20 years. As in many major cities, crime remains a significant factor in D.C., especially in the city's northwestern neighborhoods, which tend to be more affluent, draw more tourists, and have more vibrant nightlife.[5] Violent crime also remains a problem in Ward 8, which has the city's highest concentration of poverty.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

I said I remember their bans, not their murder rate, which doesn't have anything to do with the other. I didn't claim that it did. Since DC law required guns to be rendered inoperable in the home, I fail to see what that had to do with street murders. Your entire rant has nothing to do with what I said. Although someone teaching a Jr high school class on critical thinking could use your post as an example of a couple of logical fallacies.

[jimmy the one]

35. NW quadrant of DC

wiki, cited by johnston: As in many major cities, crime remains a significant factor in DC, especially in the city's northwestern neighborhoods, which tend to be more affluent,

Dontcha love 'experts' who come in & preach about things they know little about? like shapiro claiming that DC handgun ban deprived law abiding citizens the right to bear arms & that became the reason for the increase in murder rates, when the ban was supported by DC residents in general & blunted crime & murder.
Johnston exhibits same character, for missing that the northwest quadrant of DC, is the most safe of the 4 - it's the 'most white' while the other 3 quads are predominantly black, affected negatively by whites coming in from more affluent suburbs to work high paid govt jobs while they live there their entire lives & go next to nowhere.
Higher incidence of crime in NW (georgetown) would be property crime or theft since more affluent section of DC. The higher incidences of violent crime occur in the other 3 quads, as evidenced by the graph, actually from the very link johnston used:



yahoo link: the most unsafe areas would tend to be SE and NE - usually the farther away from the Capitol/Federal City the more dangerious it could be. SW is coming up with waterfront development and the new Nationals Ballpark (technically across S. Capitol Street from SW - but effects the bad areas of SW right near it).

[spin]

18. The Brady Campaign was originally Handgun Control Inc. ....

Brady Campaign

***snip***

History

The Brady Campaign emerged from Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), originally the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH), and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV). NCCH was founded in 1974 by Dr. Mark Borinsky, a victim of gun violence, and became HCI in 1980.[4]
On June 14, 2001, Handgun Control, Inc. was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in honor of Sarah and Jim Brady.[4] On October 1, 2001, it incorporated the Million Mom March.[5]
In January 2010, the Better Business Bureau published its Charity Review on the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stating that it failed to meet five (of twenty) standards for charity accountability. This report will expire in 2014.[2]

***snip***


In 1976,[inconsistent] then chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields stated

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.[14]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

[ileus]

30. A 432 is great for conceal carry.

But why limit yourself at home, when you have so many great options.

[frylock]

20. and of course, last year's AR is outdated..

so rush out and get the fresh, new model year Bushmaster! Wayne LaFuckface thanks you for the advertisement.

[gejohnston]

24. Next year it will be Olympic Arms or

Stag.

[ManiacJoe]

25. My old model Bushmaster works just fine, thank you.

Bought it during the previous Assault Weapons Ban.

[frylock]

31. how did you ever manage to wrest it from the grip of that gun grabbing bill clinton?

[ManiacJoe]

33. Like the current silly AWB proposal,

the previous AWB did not ban any rifles, just banned some cosmetic features. I paid a little more to keep the cosmetics since it was a pre-ban gun.

[amuse bouche]

26. Clearly, that lady gunhumper

has a Rambo Annie fantasy



She kept saying...'a young mother trying to save her children' That was a dead giveaway of her Rambo Annie audition tape

Lawrence O'Donnell called her bull shit on last night's show

[robinlynne]

28. and the children are screaming. and there are a bunch of intruders, not one.

[amuse bouche]

29. She looked

like an SNL sketch in front of Congress.

[robinlynne]

34. you're right.

[robinlynne]

27. good question.

[sylvi]

32. You might as well ask

You might as well ask about an instance of of a mother protecting her home with an over-and-under shotgun, or an S&W Model 19 revolver, or a .243 deer rifle. Because there is no database that I'm aware of that contains information on specific types of firearms used in self-defense. You might find something that breaks it down into the generic "handguns", "rifles" and "shotguns", but beyond that, where do you find it, unless a local news station slips up and lets the info out. That's assuming they even know or care or can correctly identify it, and we've seen what a woefully ignorant crowd the media is when it comes to identifying a weapon.

So it's extremely rare that a news report will list the details of the weapon used defensively, but let one be used in a murder and you get the make, model, calibre, barrel length, length of pull, magazine size, rate of fire, rounds expended, who invented it, it's complete history of use in crime and what the shooter had for breakfast that morning. Plus, unlike a defensive gun use, you hear it repeated for weeks on end, if the MSM thinks it sells enough advertising spots on their program.

[jpak]

36. I FOUND ONE!!!!!111111

[Remmah2]

38. Is it possible the media avoids these stories?

[ManiacJoe]

39. It is all but guaranteed they avoid these stories.

Two reasons:
(1) It does not fit their anti-gun agenda.
(2) Stories of injured/dead people sell more ads.

[Remmah2]

40. Wasn't there also a time when the anti's mocked us for asking about firearms used in crimes?

Now the anti's are asking for information on guns used for personal defense.

Go figure.