Detroit homeowner shoots, kills armed suspect: 'It was me or him'

How would having to acquire a license and mandatory firearm safety training for me to own my firearms infringe on my right to bear arms?

 

Both are examples of unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, infringements.

 

Are ya posting this as bait, cause I don't think anyone's gonna have a problem with this.

 

same with religion, but try to practice the Peyote religion in your home

 

safety

 

I’m still amazed at the number of people who haven’t even bothered to do a simple YT search on ballistics and home defense. Aside from movies we can see who has actually either attended classes or knows **** all about room clearing.
No, a pistol isn’t the safest choice.

 

Do I have a right to vote? Do you have a right to vote?

 

All I said is legally carrying and not specifically mentioned open carry BTW. In my state, Texas, it is perfectly legal to conceal carry in any establishment under the 51% rule, but not open carry. And I have "known" people to do just that at a local establishment. However, in Texas, it is against the law to be intoxicated and carry, but that is a different argument. BTW, that 51% rule applies to certain exemptions for alcohol taxes and fees in Texas, not the liquor license in and of itself.

However, more states have allowed guns into bars legally from his article.

 

Point of clarification, in texas, the law says you have to be intoxicated in order to not carry a firearm. However, in Texas, concealed carry is allowed if A the premises allows it or does not put up any warning signs to not enter with no firearms or b the 51% rule for on-site alcoholic sales. That 51% rule for alcohol is not significant on who obtains the liquor license to sell, just a sign in big red with 51% label on it that it derives its sales from 51% of on-site alcoholic sales. And if that sign is not posted, you can go in there with a concealed carry, not open carry still if alcohol is being served at the establishment.

However, the point I was making was not what was legal or not, but how to use self-defense. Plenty of people who go to bars, conceal carry, legally or not, get into a fight, and then use said firearm, will generally claiming "self-defense." It may be possible for someone to have a successful claim of self-defense in that situation even though the person may be guilty of a lesser charge like violating a state law to not conceal carry where the establishment sells 51% or more of its alcohol on site.

 

Pistols and handguns have an effective range of 25 meters or less. They are easier to conceal, easier to handle, if properly trained, and easier to stop a person in close quarters, especially in a place like a home or an office where you and a few meters is all that stands in the way. It's not the velocity that you should concentrate on, it's the application. Rifles can be cumbersome weapons and you will either need a platform or some sort of prop to steady the firearm before shooting. Furthermore, because rifles are much more high power, even a .223 at 10 meters or less, that bullet will go through the individual, assuming it does not hit bone and shatter, and onto its next target indiscriminately.

 

Either the police did not believe his story or the police were detaining him, handcuffing him for both his and their safety, until the investigation is completed. This is the standard operating procedure if facts and circumstances dictate it.

Just because one is handcuffed does not mean one is arrested. one can be detained and handcuffed, especially after a shooting. All the police knew when they arrived on the scene is one person shot and killed another person. If he identified himself as the shooter, the police can and do have every right for their safety and his.

 

I agree with that. However, pistol rounds will penetrate walls and can at short distances like you listed still pass though flesh.
I still remember the transition from rounds like 9mm to .223 in the AR platform was the thing. A frangible round loses energy faster, with less chance of passing through internal structure. If you hit doors like I did you used the same hardware, minus the shotty.
There’s ambush style and hunter style when looking for a bad guy/guys in a home invasion. Even if i chose the first the SBR is a cleaner and safer choice. People who flat out dismiss that improvement are who I’m speaking to. Never hurts to see what Hickok45 or Mas says.

 

No cogent response?
I accept your concession.

 

True too, especially in apartments and condos, however, the average person is not a SWAT-certified police officer or a combat soldier trained in urban combat and room extraction. The average person will have adrenaline running, emotions ranging from scared to complete nervousness, with an intruder whom the average person does not know or may know and not understanding what their intentions are when it comes to the decision to defend oneself.

That is why the first step is to be aware of your surroundings and to be in full control of your emotional faculties. In most circumstances, if an intruder is at your home or you think an intruder is attempting to get into your home, then first warn them, then call 911 and keep the call going as you attempt to talk to the person again, and if all else fails, then decided to use self-defense by any means necessary. And for the record, we are not talking about someone late at night getting confused and ringing your doorbell or the Oscar Pistorius situation or something similar. It is those small, significant details that matter and those details are the difference between self-defense and homicide under the law.

 

Exactly.

What if the guy who defended himself didn't have a gun and was shot? Does the 2A now grant someone a right to murder people?

You have a right to have and even carry a gun but your right to USE it, even in "self defense" becomes rapidly problematic. This assailant was off his property (and his rocker, sounds like) so shooting him when he pulled a gun himself seems open and shut, but if he HADN'T a gun then shooting him would be whole nother thing. What I want to see is NOBODY having a gun, not the assailant or the assailed.

 

Why do that? That can anger people.
I don't even answer the door past a certain time if I'm not expecting anyone. I just call the police very quietly. And yes, I have called the police on JW, they've not been back either

 

why not want everyone to kiss each other? If you’re gonna live in fantasyland go the full 9.

 

You gunnies are just SOO anxious to kill somebody, buncha Internet Tough Guys from what I see.
The 2A does NOT mean that murder is legal. I don't care what Wayne LaPierre says.

 

His mistake was not calling a social worker first.

 

would you take a second and quote where anyone said the 2A makes murder legal? Or is that just a blatant lie on your part?

 

It's a poll tax.

 

Maybe it would help them if they thought of it as the retroactive abortion of a very bad person?

 

So is voter ID, but you support that.

 

I think using an AR15 for home defense is valid under the right circumstances. It has been done before. There was a story a few years ago about a teenage boy who was home alone that took down 3 armed intruders with an AR. If you live in an apartment or townhouse, you need to be mindful of that. Ripping off an AR in those circumstances is not the smartest choice. You are responsible for every round that leaves that barrel.

 

I said it doesn't, but a lot of people seem to think it does.