Castle Doctrine, guns emboldening home invasion, and guns as solution to guns...

[sharesunited]

All contained in one story. Thanks Second Amendment!

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/09/04/san_marcos_police_repor.html

[Treo]

1. Ok

Do you have a solution?
Do you seriously believe that this crime (and none like it) would have ever occurred W/ out guns
Since you're NOT going to get the BGs to give up their guns do you suggest I give up mine?

[sharesunited]

3. Keep your guns. But cease and desist making and selling new guns and ammo.

The longest journey begins with the first step.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. No. We have you strongly out voted. N/T

[Treo]

5. Do You know haw long guns last?

I posted a question once on THR (Iverglass’s favorite site) asking who had a working gun that was older than 100 years. I got six pages of responses and the oldest gun was a working fusil that was almost 499 years old. Do you see how unworkable your solution is? Also how do you think the people you’re going to put out of a job will respond to your idea?

[sharesunited]

9. The mere fact that there are no more new ones being made would be enough to slow usage.

Respect for the value of a product which public policy declares shall become ever more scarce because they just aren't made anymore.

Plus, as has been pointed out in other threads, some number of guns will continue to be seized as evidence or contraband in connection with existing criminal law enforcement, shrinking the pool over time.

From the emancipation proclamation to the Civil Rights Act took one hundred years. Does that mean Lincoln should not have issued it?

If you couldn't go to the store and buy a box of new ammo, don't you suppose it would make the ammo in your closet that much more precious? It would go a long way toward bringing Chris Rock's vision of "Bullets should cost five thousand dollars" into reality, with people behaving accordingly toward the disappearing stockpile.

The employment aspect is insignificant compared to the harm caused by all aspects of this injury. Those people can go work in the plowshare business, and I encourage them to do so immediately in fact.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Haven't your flogged this dead equine enought?

The examples you choose make your position look absurd.

What are you going to do when Daley gets his ass handed to him by the Federal court on private firearm ownership?

[Treo]

18. No

Respect for the value of a product which public policy declares shall become ever more scarce because they just aren't made anymore.
You do realize you're BEGGING for a black market in fire arms right?
I worked as a machinist for several years. I even worked in a shop where everyone carried. We had one guy that turned his own shell casings every year for deer season. and one guy made a revolver just to see if he could.

TRANSLATION: Your plan is NEVER going to work



The employment aspect is insignificant compared to the harm caused by all aspects of this injury.

Of course it's insignificant YOU aren't the one losing your job.

[slackmaster]

30. Does the concept of "That's just not going to happen" have any meaning for you?

:crazy:

[Euromutt]

32. The obvious problem (which has already been pointed out again and again)

...is that the supply of guns doesn't drive crime; it's crime that creates a demand for guns, and that demand attracts a supply. If the black market can't be fed with guns acquired by straw purchases or theft from private citizens, it will be fed with guns smuggled in from abroad or stolen from government agencies (e.g. from police evidence lockers and National Guard armories). And even that diminished supply will almost certainly be more than enough to meet the criminal element's needs.

So when it comes to your "guns as a solution to guns" meme, your proposed course of action isn't going to solve the problems associated with firearms, but it is going to restrict the solution. Worst of both worlds, but that's faith-based thinking for you, I guess.

The "$5,000 per round" idea is similarly hare-brained. At those prices, smuggling ammunition becomes a very viable business model, so it's not going to stop the criminal element. Also, it means that those people who still do have firearms and a small stockpile of ammunition for lawful self-defense won't be able to practice with their firearms, because it'll be prohibitively expensive to do so. And as things stand already, every gun owner who frequents an internet firearms forum has heard often enough that "every bullet you fire has a potential lawsuit attached to it." There is already a high price on dispatching stray pieces of copper-jacketed lead into the surrounding area.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. Will we be free of guns before or after we are free of heroin?

Smack- illegal for circa 95 years and still going strong

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. That, and some East German-style border controls to prevent smuggling

Why fuck around with the Department of Homeland Security? We'll need a full-on Stasi clone to
save from the scourge of guns!

[Treo]

88. It didn't work in the DDR

Why would it work here?

Yes I know you're being sarcastic

[Statistical]

24. All previous votes by women stand but no new voting by women.

Would you attempt to argue that doesn't violate the 19th?

[rrneck]

52. I believe we've taken that journey before.

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

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Someone (Einstein?) once said that the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[paulsby]

66. keep your books and magazine

but cease and desist in making new ones!

[Francis Marion]

77. Set the example and stop exercising your rights.

Splendid, now you'll lead by example with respect to your proposed implosion of rights.

No new additions to the library.
No voting.
No freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
No refusal to incriminate yourself.
And no more freedom of speech; better make your last post a good one.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Glad the homowner was able to defend himself.

Home invasions have been know to occur thousands of years ago. Nothing new about them. Except back then they homeowner was likely to be beaten to death, or stabbed.

The homeowner's gun enabled him to defend himself against four attackers, killing two, seriously wounding one, and the last one ran away. Sad that the criminals made such bad life choices at such an early age. Getting killed is an occupational hazard of being a home invader.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. What is your objection to the "Castle Doctrine"?

Please don't get the Castle Doctrine" confused with "Stand Your Ground" laws. Castle Doctine only applies to one's home and, depending upon state to one's business and/or auto.

If four young men, not law enforcement, kick my door in at 2AM, why shouldn't I automatically be able to defend myslef with deadly force.

[Treo]

8. Honestly

If 4 young men (or one young man) kicked down my door in the wee hours I wouldn't even offer a chance to surrender I would start shooting immediately.

However, if it were a hot young woma... not so much :bounce:

[sharesunited]

10. Uh huh. Just rape her at gunpoint? Hey, she broke in here!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Bad move

In a home invasion situation, f they are moving towards you, shoot, regardless of gender.

On a practical level, in that situation you will not be able to tell genders anyway

[Treo]

19. It Was A Joke Guys SORRY NT

[Katya Mullethov]

7. I guess everyone was wondering why they didnt show up for school

NOT

[GreenStormCloud]

11. What would you do if four young men kicked in your door?

For the sake of discussion, they don't have guns. They have knives, like the ones that murdered a couple a few houses down from me.

OK, it's 2AM, and four guys with kitchen butcher knives (ten inch blades) have just kicked in your front door. Now what do YOU do?

[sharesunited]

12. Shoot them all dead and hope I'm not prosecuted for it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Shoot those posing an active threat is the right response

If the press write up is true there will be no criminal or civil legal proceedings.

[Treo]

20. In Colorado you wouldn't be NT

[slackmaster]

29. The proper state of mind is to apply an appropriate level of force until the threat has stopped

HTH

BTW, California's Castle Doctrine law (PC 197) protects from criminal prosecution people who use deadly force to stop an attack by someone who entered the home forcibly and unlawfully.

[spin]

31. From the article...

Police Chief Howard Williams said the three residents of the home were awakened by a commotion shortly before 2 a.m. He said one resident opened a bedroom door to find a suspect pointing a weapon at him from the living room. Williams said the resident, who was armed with a pistol, shot three of the suspects, and that a fourth escaped uninjured.

It looks like the homeowner acted appropriately. If I opened a bedroom door and found someone pointing a weapon at me, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot. I would also assume the other intruders were armed.

Florida law would probably protect me from prosecution and law suits.

It's a shame that the intruders were so young. But armed teenagers are quite capable of killing.

[Euromutt]

34. Hell, there's younger have done worse

If you look at the civil war in Sierra Leone ten years ago, the Revolutionary United Front fielded child soldiers as young as 12 or 13, who proved perfectly capable of using machetes to dismember victims. Mostly for shits and giggles, as far as I can tell.

[Euromutt]

35. No, not "what would GreenStormCloud do"; what would YOU do?

It's a serious question; it merits a serious answer. So tell us, Mr. "Guns are the problem," if four teenagers bust into your house at 2 AM, armed not with guns but with baseball bats or 10" chef's knives, what are you going to do?

[sharesunited]

39. If I do what GreenStormCloud would do, that settles my problem. Assuming the DA agrees.

But I wonder if the swift certainty of my justice would find acceptance among the family of the dead boys.

Don't their families come to my house in the middle of the night, and pour kerosene on my exterior walls, and set my house ablaze? Or have I decided to get myself a guard dog, and he awakens me, and I go out and shoot them dead too?

What to do, what to do.

What would Gandhi do? Remember him? Victim of gun violence.

[Treo]

40. So you're just going to roll over

Like a good boy take your beating like a good boy and trust to the mercy of a thug?

Simple question you wake up at 2 am W/ a bad guy kicking in your door would you rather have a phone or a gun in your hand?

[sharesunited]

43. I'm able bodied. Can I choose samurai sword or aluminum bat?

[Statistical]

46. I assert (without any factual basis) that bats and swords embolded criminals.

You are a coward to need a sword as a penis extension.

If you are so afraid of the world that you need a sword then you are a coward.

Criminals get swords because of sword nuts like you.

Ok you can keep the sword but all commerce of swords stops. The 2nd protects your right to own a sword but not the ability to make them, sell, or trade them.

[sharesunited]

49. Can I kill a half dozen people with a sword without breaking a sweat?

Doesn't it take more effort than my index finger to end their lives?

Can't they run away and avoid my blade?

I understand your satirical point. But the equivalency to which you aspire simply fails.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Depends on your skill level

Can you kill half a dozen people with a pistol? Depends on your skill level. For most people, the answer is no.

[Euromutt]

64. Akihabara massacre, Tokyo, 08-Jun-2008

A guy plowed a rented truck into a crowd, killing three and wounding two. Then he got out and stabbed twelve people with a dagger, of whom four fatally. He probably did sweat a bit, but he still managed to run fast enough that the police only caught him because he ducked into an alley that turned out to be a dead end.

Or how about the Osaka school massacre, seven years previously to the day? A 37 year-old former janitor used a kitchen knife to kill eight children, and also seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.

Or there's the Nonhyeon-Dong massacre, in Seoul on 20-Oct-2008. A guy set fire to his lodging house and then atacked the other residents with a sashimi knife as they tried to flee. He killed five people, and a fifth died from injuries sustained jumping out of a fourth floor window. Another 7 people were injured.

None of the examples are exactly killing "a half dozen people without breaking a sweat," but evidence abounds that a determined maniac with a knife can readily rack up a body count equaling that of most mass shooters.

[SteveM]

90. And now swords. More from Gandhi...

"Taking live may be a duty... Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." Mahatma Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, Navajivan Trust, 1960.

[Treo]

48. Yes but,

What are you going to do in 500 years when we run out of guns and they come after your sword and bat?
Better yet what are you going to do after going after someone W/ your $15,000 REAL Katana and the police take it for evidence ?

[sharesunited]

50. Meat cleaver from Williams Sonoma? Hockey stick? BBQ grill scraper? Weed eater?

Nah, there's nothing like punching holes in flesh and bone from a safe distance.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. I will choose the one that keeps me safest.

My objective is to survive the encounter. If I can retreat and avoid the confrontation, then I will retreat. But if I can't, then the stand-off ability to use a gun BEFORE the other guy can hurt me is a strong plus for the gun. If I am in a confrontation, I am in it against my will. My objective is not to make a display of machismo, but is to simply survive - unhurt if possible. Being able to deliver traumatic levels of force, from a distance, to the BG certainly aids in my survival.

[sharesunited]

58. Unfortunately, access to a device like that is too great a threat for society to tolerate.

[Treo]

59. But society DOES tolerate it every day and we're still here

You aren't morally superior to me because you'll grab a katana and I'll grab a CZ75B. You're still using a lethal weapon ( the most advanced one of it's time ) to project deadly force

[sharesunited]

61. It's about the swiftness and efficiency of the finality suffered by innocents upon someone's whim.

The reason you choose the device is the same reason it is chosen by the goof.

Effortless administration of death or multiple deaths.

I know you consider it a terrible sacrifice on your part to give up access to this choice. But it is for the common good.

[Treo]

62. Never MInd NT

[Treo]

63. A weapon is a weapon and dead is dead NT

[Euromutt]

65. Complete and utter bollocks

How fucking dare you? Where do you get the fucking gall to presume what motivates gun owners to own a gun? I doubt you have the common fucking decency to feel the slightest twinge of shame for that remark, but any decent human being most assuredly would.

No, I do not choose a firearm because it allows me to "effortlessly administer death." I choose it because it provides me with the most certain way available of stopping an aggressor without having to invest a massive amount of time in becoming competent with a melee weapon. See, strange as it may sound to you, I'm not a violent person; I'm not interested in investing several hours a week at a dojo so I can acquire skills of questionable value in a fight, that I never hope to use anyway.

I've chosen firearms because I prefer to let technology do the hard work for me, especially since it does so more effectively than any melee weapon or martial art, and with considerably less practice required. Guns are a fantastic invention: they allow people who have to work for a living to have a more than even chance at killing a professional parasite whose main skillset consists of knowing how to hurt others (like knights, samurai and indeed armed robbers). If you want to think there's something dishonorable in that, you're entitled to your moronic opinion, but I do not give a flying fuck. When somebody threatens the life and limb of my family and/or myself, I'm not interesting in giving the aggressor a fair fight; I want him hors de combat in as short an amount of time as physically possible. I'd rather have the son-of-a-bitch run away or surrender, but if nothing will stop the attack short of the application of an amount of force that is liable to prove lethal, that's his fucking problem, and he should have thought of that earlier.

And don't you presume for a second to sanctimoniously lecture me on "the common good." It might be your idea of the common good, but your idea is faith-based; that is to say, it is blissfully resistant to evidence that your idea is utter crap. Explain to me how it's "for the common good" that those who are not inclined to inflict violence upon others for material gain disarm themselves, while no method exists to get violent criminals to do the same? Because they won't disarm themselves you know. You can wish for it all you want, but that's not going to make it happen, any more than wishing for a winning ticket is going to help you win the lottery.

[PavePusher]

69. Please explain to me...

The ethical or legal reason that I must give up the most efficient self defense tools yet invented? Is there some reason that I must put myself on an equal or lesser footing as a criminal? Do I "owe" the criminal a "fair fight"? Does a criminal have a right to have ANY opportunity to cause me injury?

[slackmaster]

72. No "innocents" were harmed in the incident being discussed here

Have you lost sight of that?

Did you ever have it?

[Xenotime]

73. Well said.

[paulsby]

67. the same arguments are used

against free speech. heck, they won in most of europe- witness their hate speech laws.

sorry, i won;t cede my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (or any other ) rights because some internet poster FEELS that it's too great a threat.

my guns are only a threat to criminals. and i've carried one on duty for 20+ yrs

[sharesunited]

86. Would you feel the same way if bullets entered your body? Or would you experience a conversion?

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Legally, you are still using deadly force. N/T

[PavePusher]

57. And those are less lethal than guns?! Seriously?

I am deeply concerned for your mental health.

[benEzra]

71. Given that three or four times as many people are murdered with edged weapons and clubs

as with all "assault weapons" combined, I think your "blades and clubs good, guns bad" thing is more of "the weapons I like should be allowed, the weapons I don't like should be banned."

[spin]

81. With the proper training a sword is a formidable weapon, however...

is wise not to bring a sword to a gunfight. That's why they are not widely used by the military forces of developed nations.

If you do decide to use a sword, be sure to buy an actual sword not a cheap display sword.

I own one of these:

[SteveM]

89. "What would Gandhi do?" Since you asked...

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour." -- Mahatma Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, The Natvajivan Trust, 1960.

There are other quotes along similar lines from the Mahatma.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. You must be a better shot than the man in the story.

[sharesunited]

44. Maybe seeing the instant paralysis and blood gushing gave him pause.

Lost his war nerve.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Who knows?

[GreenStormCloud]

56. The one that escaped was unarmed.

Sounds like the shooter was able to discriminate among the targets and did not shoot the unarmed. The other three were armed.

[spin]

82. Wow, you must a one hell of a good shooter or...

you watch too much movies and TV and possible play one person shooter games.

[JonQ]

47. Point out that you have no weapon

and no intentions of defending yourself. This will convince them not to attack me, as they only harm people who try to defend themselves.

Explain to them that violence doesn't solve anything and they should rethink their life of crime.

Sit down with them with a cup of cocoa.

Leave as life long friends.

Invite them over in the future to sing kum-by-ya.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Your post title is hyberbolic assertion and nothing more

We indeed should be thankful that the 2nd amendment and good SCOTUS decisions like Heller support the progressive concept of private ownership of firearms and their legitimate use.

[proteus_lives]

15. blah, blah.

Guns are bad. The homeowner should have just let himself be robbed. Because that is what you would have done right? Passively accept what happens to you. :puke:

And once again you have more sympathy for dead criminals then the innocent who defended himself and his home.

[LAGC]

21. Its a sad story when children are involved, but...

How can you possibly know what an intruder's intentions are, esp. when they are brandishing a weapon at you? Sure, they might just be after your stuff, in which case you can just say "Let them have it, taking a human life isn't worth it." But what if they decide to harm you or your family in the process? Surely someone breaking and entering doesn't have lawful intentions to begin with... while I'd always suggest brandishing a weapon before actually using it, it all boils down to if there is a clear and present threat to you or your loved ones -- in this case, I think the homeowner acted appropriately, as he saw a weapon in one of the perps hands and defended himself.

[Carl Skan]

22. NEWS FLASH: Thievery still a very high risk occupation.

As it has been for millennia. Thanks Second Amendment!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. More importantly the risk is increasing

While the bloodshed is not a good thing, it is in many ways a societal self cleansing

[spin]

36. To be honest I really don't care if someone breaks into my home...

when I'm not there. I have insurance and I can replace material things. (Of course, I would be upset and the process of getting the insurance company to pay off would be a pain in the ass).

I do care if they pull a home invasion. It's fairly easy to determine if someone is home. If you enter my house while my family and I are present, you are a danger. If you get past me then my daughter, her husband and their children are in serious trouble. I will do my best to stop you. You may only want to steal my money or possessions but I can't take the chance that you plan to do more serious harm to my family.

When I lived alone in Tampa, I had a different attitude. I would give anybody a fair chance to surrender. This is foolish, but I would never want to kill some stupid kid just because he thought I was an easy target. If I had been injured or killed, there was no one to worry about.

[Carl Skan]

38. That's the difference between this situation

and putting a remote controlled gun in your home.

There's also no way to know it was "some stupid kid" at night. It's a dark blob with a gun.

edit:changed "black blob" to "dark blob" to make sure there wasn't anything racist read into the fact that you just can't see at night

[nccomms]

25. i can't understand

how anyone thinks that if i am in bed asleep & someone forced there way into my home then somehow its my fault that i shot them. I didn't choose to put myself in that situation, they did.

Also if you ban guns today, & some how you get rid of all of them. Whats next knives, bats, sharp sticks. It seems that banning guns is like treating a symptom & not the disease. Make all the laws you want, & ban anything you want, but laws are like locks & really meant to keep honest people honest. As for the statements i've heard in the past that if banning guns would save just one life it would be worth it, I say their are plenty of stories where having & using gun saved lives. So couldn't you say we should all responsibly carry guns if it saves just one life it's worth it?

[slackmaster]

28. sharesunited's position is that the guns caused the home invasion to happen

:crazy:

[nccomms]

33. i understand that

i said i don't understand how people think that it is somehow the homeowners fault when they have to shoot an intruder.

[spin]

37. Great Britain has a serious problem with knives...

and they have very restrictive laws.

[Euromutt]

68. They have a gun problem too

So do other European countries. It's nowhere near the size of the US's--yet--but that's because the criminal culture is still catching up the American criminal culture's level of homicidal tendency. Give it time, and they'll get there.

From a Dutch regional police report, 2005 (http://2005.jaarverslagpolitiehaaglanden.nl/2005/documenten/Doelgroep.Inwoners/Veiligheid.Geweld/DU7055_Drugfire+heeft+munitie+in+het+vizier.aspx?strFilter=aW50UGFnZT00):

Vuurwapengebruik lijkt niet meer weg te denken uit onze maatschappij. Bij gewelddadige straatroven en overvallen wordt al te vaak gedreigd met een vuurwapen.

It no longer seems possible to imagine our society without use of firearms. In violent muggings and robberies, a firearm is all too often used to threaten.

There was an incident last year in which a marijuana grower/dealer was murdered (sale and possession of marijuana for personal use is decriminalized in the Netherlands, but growing and trafficking it is still illegal). Parties unknown caught up with his car on the highway at night and riddled it with bullets, probably from at least one automatic weapon. They left well over fifty cartridge cases (that's how many the cops could even find) scattered along the highway. So much for gun control.

[spin]

74. The Dutch have a problem with drug gangs...

By the time the shooting ended, the A73 south of Nijmegan was littered with bullet casings, and one man lay dead in his car with another sprawled wounded in the passenger seat.

The survivor refused to talk to police, even though a hired assassin had pursued his vehicle shooting at it without hitting for several miles before finally catching up and riddling it with automatic fire.

Commuters were horrified, but the murder in September was wearily familiar to detectives who have dealt with 25 gangland-style killings in suburban southern Holland over the past three years.

As usual, there was a cannabis connection. The assassin was a hired Bulgarian and his two victims, men in their twenties, had been involved with one of the thousands of cannabis "nurseries" which flourish out of sight in the attics, sheds and spare rooms of small towns – using Dutch horticultural expertise honed from years of growing tomatoes and tulip.

****snip****

Mr Daniel said: "For years this was seen as an innocent business and the tolerant Dutch approach was undoubtedly a successful form of harm reduction – it kept users away from hard drugs.

"But now there is so much money to be made that cannabis is sucking in organised crime gangs from abroad and corrupting legitimate businesspeople – especially lawyers, estate agents and bankers. Money laundering is a massive enterprise, and it is bringing together white-collar professionals and the kind of criminals who deal with heroin, prostitutes and people-smuggling.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3997943/Pressure-to-reform-Dutch-drug-laws-as-gang-violence-grows.html

And so does Britain:

VIOLENT gang culture once seen only in deprived city areas of America is spreading to Britain, a senior Tory will warn today.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling will blame Labour’s benefit system for wrecking families and driving jobless youngsters into ghettos of drug addiction and crime.

And carrying guns and knives there will be the norm, Mr Grayling will say.

And he believes some British inner city zones risk descending into the extreme violence and drug addiction depicted in the cult television series The Wire, set in the lawless urban badlands of Baltimore.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/122606/Labour-to-blame-for-drug--gang-culture,-warns-Tory/

The majority of the violence problem often involving firearms can be associated with gangs and gang warfare.

We might be able to curb gangs by legalizing some drugs. We could also consider them to be terrorist organizations (which they are) and focus federal, state and local law enforcement efforts on this problem in a far more serious manner.

FBI: Burgeoning gangs behind up to 80% of U.S. crime,



Criminal gangs in the USA have swelled to an estimated 1 million members responsible for up to 80% of crimes in communities across the nation, according to a gang threat assessment compiled by federal officials.

The major findings in a report by the Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center, which has not been publicly released, conclude gangs are the "primary retail-level distributors of most illicit drugs" and several are "capable" of competing with major U.S.-based Mexican drug-trafficking organizations.

"A rising number of U.S.-based gangs are seemingly intent on developing working relationships" with U.S. and foreign drug-trafficking organizations and other criminal groups to "gain direct access to foreign sources of illicit drugs," the report concludes.

The gang population estimate is up 200,000 since 2005.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-29-ms13_N.htm?imw=Y

Imagine the effect of reducing the crime in our country by one half or more. We should work on trying to convince those we elect to avoid wasting their time passing draconian gun laws and instead focus on banning terrorist drug gangs.

[Euromutt]

84. Yeah, that first story is the incident I was referring to

And lest anyone try to point out that decriminalization of cannabis hasn't stopped criminal activity, the fact is that, in the half-assed manner that is all too typical of Dutch government, the production and import of cannabis is still illegal, and therefore in effect still in the hands of organized crime.

[Euromutt]

26. Any evidence that this intrusion would not have occurred if it weren't for guns?

Because we have four able-bodied teenagers, probably brimming with testosterone (and it's been fairly well established that testosterone increases one's appetite for risky behavior, which is why 15-25 year-old males are so heavily represented among perpetrators of violent crime), breaking into an occupied residence. It strikes me as fairly plausible that these kids would have been perfectly prepared to commit this crime if, instead of at least one firearm, they'd have armed themselves with blades or bludgeoning implements instead.

And here's a problem with the notion of "guns emboldening crime": it's already illegal for anyone under 18 to possess a firearm except in very specific circumstances (e.g. while hunting), and given that none of these guys were 18 yet, it's extremely unlikely that they could have gotten hold of the firearm(s) without breaking the law in the first place. If so, it logically follows that they acquired the firearms with the intent of using them for criminal purposes. Which means they would have been planning to commit a crime (like this home invasion) even before they acquired the guns (in itself a criminal offense), the logical upshot of which being that guns could not have "emboldened" these guys.

That's aside from the point that firearms are inanimate objects and can't actually do anything on the initiative of the person operating them. At most you might assert that "possession of a firearm emboldens a person already inclined toward criminal behavior to actually go through with it" which boils down to the same thing, but makes it a little more clear what the mechanism is.

[slackmaster]

27. The solution is simple

Don't break into peoples' homes, and you won't get shot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Sounds like a righteous shoot to me.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. UPDATE on the story

This comes from Googling around on different local new outlets.

Ages were 16 - dead, 16-dead, 16-wounded but not life threatening, 17 - captured when he returned to the scene to check on his friends.

The defender used a .40 Glock.

The home invaders were armed with one real handgun and two "pellet guns". The "pellet guns" were extremely realistic looking. (Sounds like an Airsoft gun to me. Or maybe a CO2 pistol.) It means that two of the teens were intending to bluff. They went to a real gunfight armed with a bluff.

About third period today (9/4/2009) word spread at school. Many of the students were crying, others shocked and stunned. The school is employing grief counselors.

All of the four had been in trouble on numerous previous occasions. (Local stories did not elobrate.)

[Treo]

60. So we know the H/O has lousy taste in guns

I wonder if the school would have brought in grief counselors if the home owner had been the one to die

[slackmaster]

70. So much for sharesunited's "availability of guns" theory

Poor judgement killed those boys.

The "pellet guns" were extremely realistic looking.

Every pellet gun I own looks just like a real pellet gun.

:crazy:

[spin]

75. Interesting, "four guns were taken from the house"????

All three residents of the home were interviewed by police, Williams said. He said it was too early to say whether or not the resident who shot the suspects will be charged. Four guns were taken from the home, he said, but he did not know who owned the guns.
from the link in the OP http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/09/04/san_marcos_police_repor.html

It sounds like they disarmed the family. If members of the families of the dead kids decide to seek vengeance, the shooter's home will be a shooting gallery.

[oneshooter]

76. Then they can defend themselves

with their katanas, kitchen knives, judo,jujitsu, juju, and baseball bats. And sharesunited will be very happy that they died bravely.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[spin]

80. It would be interesting to see a reply from sharesunited ...

it would give him an excellent chance to explain his views.

[rrneck]

83. Fracturing

cognitive dissonance is a delicate and difficult business.

[Euromutt]

85. It would be interesting indeed

But it's not going to happen. He's just going to keep pretending he hasn't read the counter-arguments to his crappy sound bites so that he can keep pretending his assertions haven't been refuted a dozen times already. "Lalala, I can't hear you! Guns embolden crime, lalala!"

So much for the courage of convictions, eh?

[spin]

87. It's called drive by posting. (n/t)

[oneshooter]

91. I looked at his Blog.

He is a Chicago anti. Probably raised with out proper reading of the Constitution, only the Mayor Daley version. I suppose that make him kind of a hopeless case.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[spin]

92. Reading his posts, he appears to believe that...

if we stop making new guns and ammo, we would live in a utopia.

It is an interesting concept, however it would drive the cost of existing weapons and ammo sky high and effectively price the middle and lower classes out of gun ownership.

But then like most gun control schemes, that's the idea. The rich and powerful are armed. The middle and lower classes are not. A return to feudal society.