65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[Stokkolm]

I started out with a .357 S&W #27 double action revolver so that kind of trigger is in my comfort zone. The P250's double action trigger is about the smoothest I've ever fired in an auto so it feels VERY "right," which is half the accuracy battle. I love it.

You're about to make my wife very upset, I'm feeling the urge to buy a new handgun... :-)

[DocM]

You're welcome ;)

One thing though: the one problem with the P250's trigger is a longish reset, but practice takes care of getting used to that. Then again, there are 2 different length triggers that can be swapped in a few minutes by removing the fire control module, taking off the trigger spring & bar and swapping triggers.

[Rohdekill]

Well, if this is the type of society you want to live in, good for you.

It's not that I "want" to live in such a society - we have been left with little choice when criminals own the streets. Fools on this thread believe outlawing guns will resolve the issue. By doing so, you only remove the gun from law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun no matter what laws are in effect. When our police force, at minimum staff due to budget cuts, are reduced to little more than custodians who clean up the mess after the crime, society is left to defend themselves.

We can either play the roll of the victim, living in fear and praying that when something does happen that the criminal is caught, tried and actually sentence beyond the typical slap on the wrist joke of a sentence. Or, we can stand up and defend ourselves.

You talk about spending money (which no one has) to deter crime. My solution is FREE - instill fear into the criminal mind. Fear that every potential victim and witness may be armed and will put a bullet in your head.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Well, if this is the type of society you want to live in, good for you.

Exactly. Some people don't seem to realize that their thirst for vengeance causes the violent society that makes them scared enough to think they need to carry a weapon at all times. They don't see the circular nature of it or the fact that they are the root of the problem just as much as any criminal. I am free to walk tall and proud with fear.

It's not that I "want" to live in such a society - we have been left with little choice when criminals own the streets. Fools on this thread believe outlawing guns will resolve the issue. By doing so, you only remove the gun from law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun no matter what laws are in effect. When our police force, at minimum staff due to budget cuts, are reduced to little more than custodians who clean up the mess after the crime, society is left to defend themselves.

That isn't the case here where I live. Societal breakdown may have already happened where you live but around here we invest in society rather than leave it to each person to defend himself or herself. It doesn't need to be a society of the fittest where grandma needs to hold her own just as much as the next guy.

[Rohdekill]

That isn't the case here where I live. Societal breakdown may have already happened where you live but around here we invest in society rather than leave it to each person to defend himself or herself. It doesn't need to be a society of the fittest where grandma needs to hold her own just as much as the next guy.

So, explain to us all how your society protects grandma from being mugged, shot or beaten? Explain exactly how each program your society invested in is actually there to protect her from harm at the moment the crime occurs. Explain to us exactly how your society has abundance of funds to pay for such investments.

As I thought....no matter what investments your little society has in place, it cannot protect anyone at the moment a crime occurs. You might accomplish reducing crime, but you sure as heck cannot prevent it.

[Southern Patriot]

Fred, you may not realize this but Canada has roughly the same (if not higher) number of handguns per capita as the US. Wikipedia says that there were about 1 million handguns in Canada in 2000 vs 77 million in the US. Sounds good until you remember that Canada has 34 million people compared to 312 million in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Guns

The overall number of guns (including shotguns and rifles) per capita in the US is much higher though, probably because many hunters will own multiple guns for different types of hunting.

[Dot Matrix]

The only controversy here comes from the fact that we have jackasses in this (and EVERY gun related thread) from other countries who just LOVE telling us how to run ours. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that higher private gun ownership has resulted in lowering the violent crime rates here. And of course, these same idiots think that the things they see on TV or in the movies (shooting to wound/disable, firing "warning shots", etc.) are actually reasonably possible or recommended. If they insist on watching so much TV, I might suggest they watch a couple of episodes of MythBusters, specifically "Bullets Fired Up" and "Unarmed and Unharmed", and just about any other gun related episode.

I've been to Reading a few times, and I can tell you the trails out there can become quite secluded. The way I see it is this, these kids were flat out assaulting the man. By the time he drew his gun they had knocked him off his bike and had him pinned to a fence. The gloves were off. This man had every right to believe his life was in danger and took the appropriate steps to protect himself.

I personally cannot stand this idea that people defending themselves or their loved ones with guns should be shunned. I'm not sure where "guns are bad" came from, but it needs to stop. The idea that bad guys should, and can be be allowed to walk all over us and loved ones needs to stop.

[deactivated170812]

The only controversy here comes from the fact that we have jackasses in this (and EVERY gun related thread) from other countries who just LOVE telling us how to run ours. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that higher private gun ownership has resulted in lowering the violent crime rates here. And of course, these same idiots think that the things they see on TV or in the movies (shooting to wound/disable, firing "warning shots", etc.) are actually reasonably possible or recommended. If they insist on watching so much TV, I might suggest they watch a couple of episodes of MythBusters, specifically "Bullets Fired Up" and "Unarmed and Unharmed", and just about any other gun related episode.

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

[Rippleman]

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

land with the most crazies ;)

[mrmomoman]

Those are my autos. I also have revolvers ranging from an 1847 Colt Walker.44 and 1858 Remington New Army to a Magnum Research BFR in .500 Magnum. Also have a Thompson Center Contender single shot with .44 Mag and 45-70 Govt. barrels.

CZ's are nice. My SIG 1911 is very tuned and a nail driver, but a bit heavy for day to day carry. For that I use the SIG P250 subcompact (.40 S&W) setup (also have the 2SUM full size kit.) Did you know that SIG just came out with a P250 subcompact with a rail handle? I'm going to call and see if the new handle will fit the existing guns - I'd love to have the option of a laser or tac-lite.

I was looking into that on their site. They said that I can convert mine to the the SUB-C and add the rail handle. Not sure how that works but I will see what options they have. I can't wait to get it to the range. I love laser sites. Sounds like you are quite the collector of some well thought out guns.

I have a CZ SUB-C - of course everything is modeled after the 1911 it seems :)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

So, explain to us all how your society protects grandma from being mugged, shot or beaten? Explain exactly how each program your society invested in is actually there to protect her from harm at the moment the crime occurs. Explain to us exactly how your society has abundance of funds to pay for such investments.

As I thought....no matter what investments your little society has in place, it cannot protect anyone at the moment a crime occurs. You might accomplish reducing crime, but you sure as heck cannot prevent it.

By the very nature of it, by reducing crime to lower levels, you prevent the would-be victims of those additional crimes from being victimized in the first place. Less crime, less victims. Simple as that.

[seta-san]

Point proven. People like you should not have a gun. I couldn't care less if you hve reasons of protecting your family. Your shoot to kill mentality is over the top and scary.

Oh right. So we'll just put a bullet in them, no worries.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

shoot to kill is the only way. Survivors sue.

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

our closeness to a very large border with human and drug smugglers as well as street criminals who sell/distribute those drugs. Add on top of that the lowered mental capacity of those that are on those drugs... and i think you have an idea. Almots all violent crime happens over drugs, money, and sex partners. Drugs and money have a heavy overlap so you will see it worse at the border and the inner cities.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Fred, you may not realize this but Canada has roughly the same (if not higher) number of handguns per capita as the US. Wikipedia says that there were about 1 million handguns in Canada in 2000 vs 77 million in the US. Sounds good until you remember that Canada has 34 million people compared to 312 million in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Guns

The overall number of guns (including shotguns and rifles) per capita in the US is much higher though, probably because many hunters will own multiple guns for different types of hunting.

Those guns have trigger locks and are stored in gun safes with the ammo stored somewhere else (or whatever the laws are for gun storage since they probably vary by province). Those guns are owned by collectors or gun clubs.

It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada.

The good news is that those guns aren't walking around on the street. Any person could become dangerous if provoked or mentally stressed (the whole temporary insanity claim) and complete their journey towards being "armed and dangerous".

You don't have to worry that some guy who just took your parking spot is going to pull a gun and shoot you. You don't have to walk scared down dark alleyways because somebody may be "packing".

Gun ownership rate is about 27% of households with great regional variations, rural much higher than urban, west higher than east.

Those guns aren't in urban Southern Ontario (where I live). Those guns are out west in Alberta and British Columbia where, surprise, surprise, the crime rate is significantly higher. Now you might think the guns are a response to higher crime rates but I'm thinking that gun ownership leads to higher crime rates. I don't know a single person in Toronto who owns firearms. Parents would not let kids play at those houses if they were to find that sort of information out. One would naturally assume they were moonlighting in the drug trade or something. You would be thought of as some sort of thug.

It is a different culture here. We expect our police forces to host at-risk youth basketball/hockey tournaments. We expect drop-in programs at our local Community Centres. We expect adult education programs and job training programs. We expect our local libraries to teach r?sum? writing courses and to provide computer/internet access for the community. We expect our public schools to be at the centre of each community with parenting courses and all sorts of extras. If a local school is in an impoverished area and is performing below provincial expectations we send in experts and provide additional funding to fix the problem. We certainly don't punish under-performing schools by giving them less money. We understand that not every community should be considered equal. Some have advantages that others do not.

[seta-san]

Those guns have trigger locks and are stored in gun safes with the ammo stored somewhere else (or whatever the laws are for gun storage since they probably vary by province). Those guns are owned by collectors or gun clubs.

The good news is that those guns aren't walking around on the street. Any person could become dangerous if provoked or mentally stressed (the whole temporary insanity claim) and complete their journey towards being "armed and dangerous".

You don't have to worry that some guy who just took your parking spot is going to pull a gun and shoot you. You don't have to walk scared down dark alleyways because somebody may be "packing".

Those guns aren't in urban Southern Ontario (where I live). Those guns are out west in Alberta and British Columbia where, surprise, surprise, the crime rate is significantly higher. Now you might think the guns are a response to higher crime rates but I'm thinking that gun ownership leads to higher crime rates. I don't know a single person in Toronto who owns firearms. Parents would not let kids play at those houses if they were to find that sort of information out. One would naturally assume they were moonlighting in the drug trade or something. You would be thought of as some sort of thug.

It is a different culture here. We expect our police forces to host at-risk youth basketball/hockey tournaments. We expect drop-in programs at our local Community Centres. We expect adult education programs and job training programs. We expect our local libraries to teach r?sum? writing courses and to provide computer/internet access for the community. We expect our public schools to be at the centre of each community with parenting courses and all sorts of extras. If a local school is in an impoverished area and is performing below provincial expectations we send in experts and provide additional funding to fix the problem. We certainly don't punish under-performing schools by giving them less money. We understand that not every community should be considered equal. Some have advantages that others do not.

you see you're living in totally different circumstnaces.You also seem to have a demented view of life in the United States. I'm 27 years old and never seen a gun pulled out or shot in violence. Violent crimes generally happen in terrible neighborhoods. In fact you can make maps of where not to go.

http://projects.latimes.com/homicide/map/?year=2011

I promise you that the bigger the circle on that map the more drugs and gangs who deal them there are. And that is L.A., a city that is considered violent. It's not nearly that bad across most of the country.. but still easily predictable by the same factors.

as for our spending on education

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm

start at 2:16 to learn the truth about education spending.

[Davo]

I personally cannot stand this idea that people defending themselves or their loved ones with guns should be shunned. I'm not sure where "guns are bad" came from, but it needs to stop. The idea that bad guys should, and can be be allowed to walk all over us and loved ones needs to stop.

It's mostly because they don't trust gun owners to be responsible.

The guy in this instance was justified but then you have instances where a guy was shot after seen fleeing an empty house with a microwave. Killing someone who is attacking you in the middle of nowhere is imminent danger. Shooting someone in the back who is running away with a $20 appliance is savage and cold blooded.

While I don't trust gun owners unconditionally, I'd rather have them in the hands of the licensed and trained than have them become a black market item.

[Bloodwork]

I'm just going to leave this here...

Street Robberies and You

[ncoday]

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

Are those all gun-related homicides?

You can kill people in more ways than just a gun.

I just verified that the gun related homicide rate is actually 2.97 per 100,000 for the US in 2010 of which is the latest year stats were available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

There any many European countries that have higher rates. Mexico is 3.66.

[Memphis]

if you took out all firearm homicides the us still has a higher homicide rate. the united States has a different problem.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

you see you're living in totally different circumstnaces.You also seem to have a demented view of life in the United States. I'm 27 years old and never seen a gun pulled out or shot in violence. Violent crimes generally happen in terrible neighborhoods. In fact you can make maps of where not to go.

That often is the problem with the United States. Some people live in gated communities while others live in "no go" zones. Both are just as much in prisons as the other.

as for our spending on education

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm

As always, it doesn't matter how much you spend as how you spend it. Some states have an appalling level of education to the point where just about anybody with means should really send their kid to a private school. I also don't buy the "union" cop-out as they exist here in Canada and the average teacher salary here in Ontario was $75,688 in 2007. Perhaps you aren't paying your teachers enough to get the best people. I can't imagine my wife taking a $11,000 to $14000 pay cut to work in California or New York nevermind the low tax states. She'd do a heck of a lot less, I guarantee it. There is a reason why Canadian universities take only a small percentage of the people who apply for the BE programs.

http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-spending-in-the-us/

start at 2:16 to learn the truth about education spending.

youtube video: _H2_vjybc6E

That video is as simplistic as the video he critiques. I challenge you to justify the net difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. They may use a different process but the accomplish the exact same thing. In one example the company pays its full taxes (let's say $20,000) but then receives a $10,000 subsidy (money taken from other taxpayers). In the other example the company pays only half of its full taxes (say $10,000) while the government does without the extra $10,000 in tax. Where do you think the government makes up for that shortfall? Why, from other taxpayers of course. The net result is no difference. He lambastes her for using these terms interchangeably but either way it's a $10,000 handout to a corporation. Presumably doing it as a targeted tax cut allows him to sleep better at night much in the same way that "collateral damage" sounds better than "dead civilians". It doesn't fool me though.

That wasn't the reason why you had me watch the video though. I just wanted to point out that he was no better than the one he criticizes. He uses the same tactics that he accuses her of doing. His video doesn't actually propose anything (other than not using Annie Leonard's videos in the classroom). Presumably he thinks the U.S. should spend less money but without a comprehensive plan this would just lead to lower test scores.

[seta-san]

That often is the problem with the United States. Some people live in gated communities while others live in "no go" zones. Both are just as much in prisons as the other.

As always, it doesn't matter how much you spend as how you spend it. Some states have an appalling level of education to the point where just about anybody with means should really send their kid to a private school. I also don't buy the "union" cop-out as they exist here in Canada and the average teacher salary here in Ontario was $75,688 in 2007. Perhaps you aren't paying your teachers enough to get the best people. I can't imagine my wife taking a $11,000 to $14000 pay cut to work in California or New York nevermind the low tax states. She'd do a heck of a lot less, I guarantee it. There is a reason why Canadian universities take only a small percentage of the people who apply for the BE programs.

http://www.realonlin...ding-in-the-us/

That video is as simplistic as the video he critiques. I challenge you to justify the net difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. They may use a different process but the accomplish the exact same thing. In one example the company pays its full taxes (let's say $20,000) but then receives a $10,000 subsidy (money taken from other taxpayers). In the other example the company pays only half of its full taxes (say $10,000) while the government does without the extra $10,000 in tax. Where do you think the government makes up for that shortfall? Why, from other taxpayers of course. The net result is no difference. He lambastes her for using these terms interchangeably but either way it's a $10,000 handout to a corporation. Presumably doing it as a targeted tax cut allows him to sleep better at night much in the same way that "collateral damage" sounds better than "dead civilians". It doesn't fool me though.

That wasn't the reason why you had me watch the video though. I just wanted to point out that he was no better than the one he criticizes. He uses the same tactics that he accuses her of doing. His video doesn't actually propose anything (other than not using Annie Leonard's videos in the classroom). Presumably he thinks the U.S. should spend less money but without a comprehensive plan this would just lead to lower test scores.

his point on education was that the amount you paid the teachers was a non-issue. You can raise pay rates exponentially and it doesn't matter at all... so why continue to pay them more?

letting people keep the money they earn is NOT A HANDOUT. That kind of thinking assumes that the money earned by private sector is the government's and that they allow us to keep some. That's a marxist way of thinking and it doesn't happen like that here in the USA.

[ANON86364]

Exactly. Some people don't seem to realize that their thirst for vengeance causes the violent society that makes them scared enough to think they need to carry a weapon at all times. They don't see the circular nature of it or the fact that they are the root of the problem just as much as any criminal. I am free to walk tall and proud with fear.

You still confuse the cause and effect! Surely you realize this man wasn't thirsting for vengeance going about his business?! He was assaulted! If you want to prove your point tell us right here how any amount of "investment in society" will actually protect a person at the moment of a physical harm. You can't sit here and deny that violence does occur in your perfect world. It does. And when it does, you don't have the right to protect yourself to whatever end.

[Rippleman]

Are those all gun-related homicides?

You can kill people in more ways than just a gun.

I just verified that the gun related homicide rate is actually 2.97 per 100,000 for the US in 2010 of which is the latest year stats were available:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Gun_violence

There any many European countries that have higher rates. Mexico is 3.66.

wow its dropped then since 1994 (which i HIGHLY doubt). NOTE:

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows: (published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention )

• U.S.A. 14.24
  
• Brazil 12.95
  
• Mexico 12.69
  
• Estonia 12.26
  
• Argentina 8.93
  
• Northern Ireland 6.63
  
• Finland 6.46
  
• Switzerland 5.31
  
• France 5.15
  
• Canada 4.31
  
• Norway 3.82
  
• Austria 3.70
  
• Portugal 3.20
  
• Israel 2.91
  
• Belgium 2.90
  
• Australia 2.65
  
• Slovenia 2.60
  
• Italy 2.44
  
• New Zealand 2.38
  
• Denmark 2.09
  
• Sweden 1.92
  
• Kuwait 1.84
  
• Greece 1.29
  
• Germany 1.24
  
• Hungary 1.11
  
• Ireland 0.97
  
• Spain 0.78
  
• Netherlands 0.70
  
• Scotland 0.54
  
• England and Wales 0.41
  
• Taiwan 0.37
  
• Singapore 0.21
  
• Mauritius 0.19
  
• Hong Kong 0.14
  
• South Korea 0.12
  
• Japan 0.05
  
• looking for more recent data...
  

[Fred Derf Veteran]

his point on education was that the amount you paid the teachers was a non-issue. You can raise pay rates exponentially and it doesn't matter at all... so why continue to pay them more?

letting people keep the money they earn is NOT A HANDOUT. That kind of thinking assumes that the money earned by private sector is the government's and that they allow us to keep some. That's a marxist way of thinking and it doesn't happen like that here in the USA.

Teachers should be treated as full professionals just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. You should want to have the best and brightest teaching the next generation so that the next generation can surpass the last one. As I say, unionized salaries cannot be the problem as Canada pays its teachers more and has also higher results to show for it. I'm not sure where your money in education is going but it wouldn't seem to be the exclusive problem of teacher salaries as many non-unionists would like to believe.

Getting back to the posted video, there is no effective difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. Either can equally be considered handouts or neither can. A drop in revenue of $10,000 has the same net effect as an increase of expenses by $10,000. It all goes down to the mathematics of NI=R-E. Call it what you will but there mathematics won't lie to you. It produces the same result. Of course from a US government point of view, the formula should actually be NL=R-E but you get the idea. Anyone who says that they are against government subsidies but in favour of targeted tax cuts is just fooling themselves.

wow its dropped then since 1994 (which i HIGHLY doubt). NOTE:

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows: (published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention )

• U.S.A. 14.24
  
• ...
  
• Japan 0.05
  
• looking for more recent data...
  

I hate to do their job for them but those statistics may include suicides.

[seta-san]

Teachers should be treated as full professionals just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. You should want to have the best and brightest teaching the next generation so that the next generation can surpass the last one. As I say it isn't unions or salaries that is the problem as Canada pays its teachers more and has higher results to show for it. I'm not sure where your money in education is going but it wouldn't seem to be the exclusive problem of teacher salaries as many non-unionists would like to believe.

Getting back to the posted video, there is no effective difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. Either can equally be considered handouts or neither can. A drop in revenue of $10,000 has the same net effect as an increase of expenses by $10,000. It all goes down to the mathematics of NI=R-E. Call it what you will but there mathematics won't lie to you. It produces the same result. Of course from a US government point of view, the formula should actually be NL=R-E but you get the idea. Anyone who says that they are against government subsidies but in favour of targeted tax cuts is just fooling themselves.

we'll start treating teachers like professions when they start acting like it. Right now they won't handle our kids, particularly our boys, without ritalin and their ability to educate and inspire just blows. I consider them to be nothing but overpaid, over glorified babysitters. Most everything of importance I've ever learned has been from debating and arguing on line with people like you either from the facts/research you come up with or the facts/research I come up with. Compulsory education was out done by my curiosity online.

Teachers should be treated as full professionals just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. You should want to have the best and brightest teaching the next generation so that the next generation can surpass the last one. As I say, unionized salaries cannot be the problem as Canada pays its teachers more and has also higher results to show for it. I'm not sure where your money in education is going but it wouldn't seem to be the exclusive problem of teacher salaries as many non-unionists would like to believe.

Getting back to the posted video, there is no effective difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. Either can equally be considered handouts or neither can. A drop in revenue of $10,000 has the same net effect as an increase of expenses by $10,000. It all goes down to the mathematics of NI=R-E. Call it what you will but there mathematics won't lie to you. It produces the same result. Of course from a US government point of view, the formula should actually be NL=R-E but you get the idea. Anyone who says that they are against government subsidies but in favour of targeted tax cuts is just fooling themselves.

I hate to do their job for them but those statistics may include suicides.

it's a lot easier when you are a small island nation with largely secured borders.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

You still confuse the cause and effect! Surely you realize this man wasn't thirsting for vengeance going about his business?! He was assaulted! If you want to prove your point tell us right here how any amount of "investment in society" will actually protect a person at the moment of a physical harm. You can't sit here and deny that violence does occur in your perfect world. It does. And when it does, you don't have the right to protect yourself to whatever end.

The senior left the house carrying a gun so clearly he was prepared to do violence. Investment is society needs to be done far in advance of a violent crime. You need to prevent the apathy, hopelessness, anger and frustration with society from taking grip. You need to give people other options.

There will always be a tiny minority that will have their own reasons to commit crimes so it isn't realistic to think that all crime can be completely eliminated no matter how hard your try or how much money you invest but that shouldn't be an excuse to not to bother trying at all. It is still cheaper at this point to prevent than it is to punish.

People shouldn't have to walk around being scared. They shouldn't have to hide in gated communities. Grandma shouldn't have to stand toe-to-toe with criminals and let the best shooter win. These are not badges of merit for society.