Group gives guns to poor inner city residents in high crime areas. Grrrr.

[cali]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/armed-citizens-project-arizona_n_2977944.html

The Armed Citizen Project is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to training and arming residents in mid-high crime areas with defensive shotguns, for free! In training and arming law-abiding residents, we are saturating neighborhoods with defensive weapons, and measuring the effect that a heavily armed society has on crime rates.

Our founder, Kyle Coplen, is a policy analyst in his final semester of the Masters of Public Administration program with the University of Houston. Tired of the blatant manipulation and politicization of statistics when it comes to the relationship between firearms and safety, Kyle decided to conduct a multi-year, multi-city study that may be able to establish the definitive link that the gun debate is sorely lacking.
http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/

It's not just Arizona.

As cities around the country experiment with gun-buybacks to get weapons off the street, one man has started a group to do just the opposite. It's called the "Armed Citizen Project," and it aims to provide guns to poor Americans in high crime neighborhoods.

"As criminals have more reason to fear the citizenry, crime begins to drop as a result," Kyle Coplen, the founder, told FoxNews.com.

This week, the group gave out its first weapons.

"We just trained and armed a class of 10 women. They are now empowered with the knowledge and tools to put holes in those that would do them harm," Coplen said.

To test his theory that guns will make people safer, Coplen also plans to arm an entire neighborhood in Houston that currently has a lot of crime, and use that as a case study to find out what happens to the crime rate after residents have been armed and trained.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/31/group-wants-to-give-guns-to-poor/#ixzz2P78KDd35

[BainsBane]

1. More guns = more deaths

I have trouble believing this is not their intent. If you take out more of the urban population, the right might be able to "take back" the America they feel they've lost.

[pipoman]

3. There is zero statistical evidence to support "More guns = more deaths"...zero

[BainsBane]

4. that's not true at all

[pipoman]

8. This is meaningless

there are many, many variables from state to state..National statistics for gun homicides looks like this:



If "More guns = more deaths" were true, this graph would look like Mt. Everest. Every single day there are more guns in private ownership than the day before....since..forever...in the "More guns = more deaths" were true, every year there would be more deaths than the year before...as you can see there are/have been long periods of declining gun homicide rates...therefore the meme is fallacious..

[BainsBane]

10. the other chart plotted household ownership

rather than simple numbers. Only 1/3 of households own guns. Some people own large numbers but can only use one gun at a time. The sheer number of guns alone doesn't account for that.

The point is a pretty obvious one. Guns are meant to kill. That is what they are designed for, and they do so very efficiently. Pretending otherwise is nonsensical.

[pipoman]

14. Then there are a lot

of broken guns around considering 300,000,000 guns and 100 to 150,000,000 owners in the US and 10,000 gun homicides annually.

The purpose of guns vary by gun type...there are many types. For instance, long guns are far less likely to be used in homicides than handguns. Another tired meme, 'guns have one purpose, to kill' is demonstrably false.

Oh, and "only 1/3 of households"? There are few commonalities in the US which encompass 1/3 of the population..1/3 of the population is a force to be reckoned with politically..

[BainsBane]

18. it's demonstrably true

and if people have another purpose, they need to find sometime else. I really don't see the point of pretending guns are harmless. People wouldn't be interested in them if they were. Their entire attraction is the ability to kill. Less likely to be used for homicide doesn't mean that they aren't designed to kill. Hunting rifles are designed to kill, even though their principal targets are animals and even particular types of animals. They are still instruments of killing. Some guns designed for war, some for personal protection (which means killing when necessary) and some for mass murder. They all have killing in common.

This entire conversation is absurd. You deny the obvious because you love guns. I'm not going to be brainwashed no matter how much you try, so give it up. It's just boring.

[pipoman]

20. No false..

Nobody said guns are harmless, you said they have one purpose to kill and that simply isn't true..Pretending to know everybody's motivation is disingenuous and again, not true..

Now tou have stated the trifecta of false gun memes..1) "more guns = more gun deaths" proven false 2) "guns have one purpose, to kill" proven false 3) You only care about self defense, sporting use and enumerated civil liberties becasue you "love guns"...absurd on its face..absurd indeed..

Maybe simply studying the issue = brain washing to you, myself? I consider those unwilling to study an issue in favor of letting some interested, biased organization feed me false talking points true brainwashing..

[baldguy]

24. The RW extremist gun weirdos aren't handing those out on the street.

And if you don't think they can kill you're a lunatic.

[baldguy]

27. And what do Pit Bulls have to do with this?

You can't defend you absurd statements without changing the subject? OK then, let's compare:

Dogs kill about 30 people a year. Guns kill about 30,000.

A properly trained and socialized dog won't hurt anybody who doesn't hurt them first. A gun can't be trained & socialized not to kill.

There's really no comparison.

[Hoyt]

46. Some folks like to pretend they are a sniper. Kind of sick if you ask me.

[Fish man]

11. Gun deaths

Your graph only lists homicides, not total gun deaths. Gun deaths also include suicides and unintentional shootings which rise when there are more guns. More guns does equal more gun deaths.

[pipoman]

16. Homicide includes unintentional shootings

suicide is another kettle of fish..guns don't cause suicide..

[baldguy]

19. For the RW extremist gun weirdos, suicides don't count.

And the killings of people like George Zimmerman who claim "self defense" don't count. And accidents don't count. And if the gun owner has the gun illegally it doesn't count. And if either the killer or the victim are involved with drugs, or have psychological challenges, it doesn't count. And if it's a mass murder it doesn't count. And if multiple guns were used it doesn't count. And if the gun was stolen it doesn't count.

All these qualifications allow RW extremist gun weirdos to ignore the blood of other people's children.

[99Forever]

52. ^^^^There it is^^^^

Anything but the honest truth of the matter.

The one and only consistent, undeniable FACT in every case of gun violence, gun wounds, and gun deaths, is that 100% of them could not have happened without the use of a gun. EVERY ONE OF THEM, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

[SQUEE]

59. So, there is no other way to kill?

You are operating from the position only gun deaths matter, or at least in this discussion.
I agree that the weapon used gives an added lethality, and ease of use, it is a force multiplier, and allows a smaller attacker to engage a larger victim.
But not every death by gun would still be alive if there were no guns. A person truly bent on killing another would have found another weapon. So your argument is false in its statement of absolute truth.
Obviously GUN DEATHS would not happen without guns, as drowning is by its definition impossible without a fluid to drown in.
To continue with the obvious all those deaths occurred when the brain stopped receiving oxygen EVERY ONE OF THEM, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. But, that means what exactly?

[99Forever]

60. Drivel...

... intended to divert the reality. Not interested in your claptrap. Even a little bit.

[SQUEE]

63. oh so sorry, I call you on your pedantic sophistry..

I have guns, will have guns, and your hand wringing and lies will never change that. Learn to deal with that and maybe we will be able to make progress on actual violence reduction. Until then your talking points and disinformation only serves to allow more death.
you and your ilk are just as responsible for the current mass murders as the idiots at the NRA.

[99Forever]

64. Bye bye.

[baldguy]

22. Thank you for posting the standard extremist RW NRA propaganda.

But it's nothing but lying bullshit, and your own chart shows guns murder more people than all the other methods combined. If you can't see that is a problem then you're hopeless.

[pipoman]

26. LOL

Again, you're not keeping up..so gun homicide has increased? Better head on over to the CDC with your proof they are wrong...actual statistics are not right or left...they are statistics..show us all how gun homicides increase incrementally with gun sales and you may have something...problem is they don't/haven't..

[baldguy]

28. Did I say increased? No, I did not.

Perhaps your should try to learn how to read a graph, starting with the one you posted yourself.

And, please stop with the lying RW extremist NRA nonsense propaganda. OK?

[hack89]

17. Your chart shows the influence of gun on suicide

why do you think so many low population western states are to the right on that chart?

Which makes sense because suicides make up the majority of gun deaths.

[smirkymonkey]

106. Thank god I live in MA.

I hate guns. I recoil at the sight of them.

[BainsBane]

107. me too

I despise everything to do with them. Mostly I hate when people make gun proliferation a goal in life.

[BainsBane]

5. Besides, why would they pass out guns

if they don't intend them to be used? The best positive spin you can put on this is they intend them as a form of defense against criminals, which will involve shooting and killing them. The whole point of handing out guns is to have people use them.

[Scootaloo]

7. Because these people don't see guns as a tool, rather as a magical totem

Simply possessing a gun will keep you safe. It also makes you a patriot, a moral person, and an authority of the law! The gun has magical powers that rub off on the owner, like any good talisman.

Also if you shake the empty cartridges and do a dance, the gods will send rain!

[pipoman]

9. Using them defensively

doesn't have to mean shooting them...in most cases no shots are fired..If victims shoot victimizers in the victims home, that is far better than the opposite.

[jmg257]

45. Pretty obvious what the purpose is...Putting holes in people.

"We just trained and armed a class of 10 women. They are now empowered with the knowledge and tools to put holes in those that would do them harm," Coplen said.

[TheCowsCameHome]

54. Coplen thinks it's a video game.

No sane person would make a statement like that.

[hack89]

13. Joe Biden would disagree with you

have you forgotten his advice using shotguns to fire warning shoots or shooting through the door. The VP is a smart man. Isn't he?

[baldguy]

33. Biden said you don't need an assault weapon to defend your home.

And if you thought you needed some kind of gun, to get a shotgun.

He wasn't handing them out to people for free.

So, I'm guessing Biden would be agreeing with BainsBane. And he'd be pissed that you'd be twisting his words.

[hack89]

41. If people don't think they need a shotgun for self defense, they can say no.

if they are saying yes, then lets respect their judgement that they need a shotgun for self defense.

It is all about choice, correct?

[baldguy]

42. Again, Biden's comment was about assault weapons - not shotguns.

It wasn't an endorsement for shotguns.

[hack89]

48. He endorsed shotguns if you need a weapon for self defense

if these women think they need a weapon for self defense, then lets respect their choice.

Afraid their experiment is going to work?

[Eleanors38]

31. Are you opposed to armed self-defense, in the home or with concealed carry?

[BainsBane]

35. I'm opposed to concealed carry

but not the right to armed defense in the home. I myself wouldn't have a gun in the house as long as I live in the city. People who do make that choice need to know the risks. They needs to know they are far more likely to have it used on themselves or a member of their own family than an intruder. Guns come in very handy for killing a member of one's own family, either purposefully or accidentally. That the gun lobby lies to people about those facts is yet more evidence of their complete disregard for human life.

Mainly I'm not a fan of genocide. I don't think killing people in the city, many of them people of color, is a legitimate way for Republicans to regain control. When people in rural areas seek to impose the same absence of gun restrictions on urban areas, it's clear to me that they are at the very least indifferent to the loss of life that results from more guns in cities. But really I suspect they want to see us dead. I get that the right has tried everything else and are short on options. Genocide, however, doesn't strike me as a legitimate political strategy. The behavior described in the OP is the most disgusting of all, and I hope they are put in jail for the murders they enable. That kind of evil defies comprehension.

[Eleanors38]

39. So, a poor armed mother who blows away a home invader is performing

Genocide in accordance with some GOP plan? That these poor folks are being deluded when others can make a proper choice about "armed defense in the home?"

[BainsBane]

40. right

Suburban and rural people who hand out guns in the city are seeking to have urban people killed. That is what they want, and they will succeed. Most of those guns will be used to kill innocent people: mainly suicides and accidental deaths, as guns do. Anyone looking at statistics knows that. The only reason to pass out guns is to see more people killed. That much is obvious. No one with a respect for life would do anything like that. These people seek to kill. They want death, and are doing their best to make sure as many people die as possible, and many will be children.

[spin]

61. You ignore the fact that guns can be a deterrent. ...

If a neighborhood that has a high crime rate and numerous home invasions suddenly has a number of trained people with shotguns, it is quite possible that the number of home invasions will decrease significantly.

The last thing a criminal who breaks into a house wants to find is a home owner with a shotgun. If the word is out on the street that a certain neighborhood is armed to the teeth, home invaders will just target another neighborhood.

[BainsBane]

72. that's absurd

the neighborhoods with the highest rates of gun violence are those with the most guns. Then there is the fact all statistics show those guns are far more likely to be used against someone in the home. Ignoring reality in favor of some NRA fantasy doesn't advance anything.

Also you imagine the greatest problem is home burglaries. I understand for many property means more than human life, so I suspect that underlies the obsession with defending the home, but that is not the nature of crime that disturbs those of us who live in the cities: it's killing, make possible because of guns. More guns means more killing. That is in fact the point of what these monsters discussed in the OP are doing.

[spin]

80. I live in a small town in north Florida. Almost every home has firearms inside ...

as hunting is very popular in this area. However if you leave something valuable outside, it will probably disappear.

Home invasions are very rare here but there is a significant drug problem in the area. Most of the violent crime is a result of gangs fighting over turf.

I will totally agree that firearms in the home are dangerous. That's a fact that anyone who decides to own one has to realize. Guns are NOT for everybody.

If you wish to steal my possessions, you can simply wait until I am not home to break in. Therefore I consider anyone breaking into my home as dangerous. That doesn't mean that I will simply blow them away. If I confront them and they make any aggressive moves, I will use my firearm to stop their attack.

Despite the skyrocketing sale of firearms, we are not seeing increased gun violence.

Violent crime, which has been falling for five years, decreased 4 percent in 2011, according to the Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report. Murders are at the lowest point in 40 years. Violent crime, according to the FBI, includes murder, rape, robbery and assault.
http://news.discovery.com/human/violent-crime-statistics-120612.htm

More guns does not equal more crime. If that were true after the last decade of every increasing firearm sales, our violent crime rate would not be at a 40 year low. However, that doesn't prove that more guns = less crime. There are far too many factors in the crime equation to consider.

[BainsBane]

82. more guns equal more deaths

that doesn't mean all kinds of crimes. A gun in a rural area is very different from a gun in the city. The skyrocketing sales of gun is because some people are accumulating more guns. People typically can only use only one gun at once. At the same time, people in cities are voluntarily giving up guns through buy back programs, which infuriates the gun forces. If these people start distributing those guns, we will see more deaths. I want to make sure they pay the criminal and civil penalties for facilitating homicide, as they deserve.

[spin]

84. You keep saying that more guns = more deaths. ...

If you are right why did the total murder rate by firearms decrease from 14,916 in 2007 to 12,664 in 2011 according to FBI stats? (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8)

The annual rate of firearm suicide per 100,000 population was 7.35 in 1993 but dropped to 6.3 in 2011. (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)

I hope that we at least agree that gun sales are skyrocketing.

Federal gun checks surge as violent crime ebbs
Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY12:26p.m. EST December 13, 2012

The number of federally required background checks of prospective gun purchasers has nearly doubled in the past decade — a time when violent crime has been in long decline in many places across the USA, according to FBI records.

The bureau's National Instant Check System (NICS) does not track actual firearms sales — multiple guns can be included in one purchase. But the steady rise in background checks — from 8.5 million in 2002 to 16.8 million in 2012 — tracks other indicators that signal escalating gun sales.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/12/gun-background-checks-surge-across-usa/1765513/

I believe you are using the General Social Survey (GSS) data to back up your claim that only a few people are buying all the guns as gun ownership is actually decreasing. However Gallup disagrees:

October 26, 2011
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

The problem with any survey about firearm ownership is that you have to believe that a gun owner is willing to tell a stranger that he owns guns. Probably 50% of the gun owners I know would simply lie. My daughter worked for the Census and had a hard time getting a lot of people to tell her how many people lived in their house. Distrust of the government runs high in this nation.

I lived in Tampa Florida for 37 years and at least 50% of my neighbors had firearms. 75% of my co-workers owned firearms and I was partially responsible for that as I was always willing to meet people at the range and introduce them to handgun target shooting. A good number of my co-workers had concealed weapons permits. I should mention that I worked with engineers and technicians in a highly complex field. Most had college degrees or degrees from a tech school and most also had government security clearances.

I don't know why you would think gun buyback programs would infuriate gun rights advocates. Most of the firearms turned in are junk anyway. Often at the police pistol range I used to shoot at, a widow would show up and ask the range master if she could give him a firearm that her late husband owned. They never asked for any money as they just wanted the gun out of their home. He was glad to help out. He always mentioned that gun should only be in the homes of responsible owners who have the necessary safety training.

[BainsBane]

85. Gallup is crap

Everyone knows it. You can look at the scatter graph from Mother Jones I already posted.

You're not going to convince me guns are harmless. Yes, there are other factors that contribute to crime--the principal one, according to a criminologist I know, is the percentage of young men in the population. But guns are designed to kill and they perform very efficiently. That is why people own them, whether to kill animals, for self defense (which involves killing or necessary), or to purposefully kill other human beings. All uses involve killing.

Tampa is far from a representative sample, but your anecdotal evidence does help explain why homicide rates are higher there than in NY, the lowest in the nation.

[spin]

88. Of course anyone who disagrees with you has to be wrong. ...

So therefore Gallup is useless but the GSS survey is gold.

You didn't address the problem I mentioned. If someone were to call me on the phone or show up at my door and ask if I owned guns I would say, "Hell no. guns are evil. No guns here!" Why should I tell a total stranger that I had firearms?

My father was an insurance investigator. He also worked for Naval Intelligence during WWII investigating among other things the scientists from Pittsburgh who were selected to work on the Manhattan Project. One of his favorite means to get information about someone was to call them or their neighbors and represent himself as working for an agency that was conducting a survey. He called this tactic "subterfuge."

Where did I ever say that guns are harmless? I have often said that guns are not for everybody. In many posts I have said, "If you have anger management problems, tend to abuse alcohol or drugs, suffer from a serious mental condition or live in a volatile relationship with a significant other -- then guns are not for you." I have also pointed our that if you decide to own a firearm you should get firearms safety training and store your weapons properly.

Comparing states is like comparing apples and oranges. However I will point out:

Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
By JACOB CARPENTER
Posted January 6, 2013 at 5:15 a.m.

In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.

As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The Firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/06/fla-firearm-violence-hits-record-low/

[BainsBane]

90. Did you notice a certain presidential election in 2012?

and the fact agencies have dropped Gallup because their polling has been so inaccurate? According to Gallup, we should be living under President Romney right now.

Florida's lowest point is still well above NY. Gun violence is highest in areas where gun restrictions are the most lax. There is lots of evidence for available. And the US continues to have the highest homicide rate of any First World nation.

[spin]

92. Which shows the inaccuracies in polling today. ...

One problem is that many younger people use cell phones and don't get surveyed.

Pew: Growing Cell Phone Poll Bias Favors Republicans
First Posted: 10/13/10 06:41 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:00 PM ET

Does it matter that many polls -- including the vast majority that we are currently watching at the state and congressional district level -- do not call Americans who use only a cell phone and thus lack landline telephone service? Yes it does. It creates a growing bias that appears to benefit Republican candidates. That's the message of a new analysis released this afternoon by the Pew Research Center.

Since 2006, a rapidly increasing percentage of American households lacks landline phone service. The most recent government estimates find that one in four American households is reachable by cell phone only. Pollsters have been reluctant to sample and call Americans on their cell phones, partly because it costs more and partly because federal law requires hand dialing any call placed to a cell phone, which makes such calls less efficient and puts cell phone polling off limits to automated survey methodologies.

***snip***

This year, according to today's report, the Pew Center finds that sampling only landline phones creates an even bigger bias -- "differences of four to six points on the margin" - in favor of the Republicans. The most recent survey in the study, conducted in late August and early September, also involved comparisons based on a subgroup of "likely voters" chosen using a traditional seven question turnout scale (similar to the classic Gallup likely voter model):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/pew-research-cell-phone-p_n_761760.html

It's wise to expect most polls today to be inaccurate. Polls on gun ownership may top the list of possibly inaccurate polls. People who fear the government is going to ban and confiscate all firearms are buying everything possible and even used handguns are selling like hotcakes. It is obvious that the government is not going to ban and confiscate all firearms, so this fear is irrational. But if many people do fear this, why would you expect them to tell a poll taker that they had just bought firearms?

As far as the contention that gun owners who already have a large collection of firearms are buying even more. Most gun owners I talk too feel the prices are way too high at this time. They will wait until some sense returns to the market and expect the price of firearms to drop like a rock.

New Hampshire is a small state compared to Florida both in size and population. There are no major urban areas that would compare to Florida's Miami, Jacksonville, Orlando and the Tampa Bay Area.
New Hampshire has a population of 1,320,718. The Tampa Bay Area has an estimated population of 4,310,524 alone. Miami-Dade County, Florida has a population of 2,591,035. Like I stated comparing New Hampshire to Florida is like comparing apples and oranges. Apples are a crop in New Hampshire but Oranges are common in Florida.

[Blue_Tires]

102. The favelas of Rio and Sao Paulo have been knee-deep with guns for decades

Go research those murder rates, and get back to me...

[hack89]

15. Except of course for the fact that gun deaths rates have fallen to historic lows.

even in urban areas.

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. Call us back when it's 0

Until then, it's too high.

[hack89]

32. Considering no gun control laws have been proposed that would accomplish that

don't expect a call anytime soon.

When Diane Feinstein is happy with the present numbers of assault weapons in America and says nothing about handguns (which kill 30,000 people annually), who am I to argue? I assume she and the President know what they are doing.

[Hoyt]

57. How low might gun deaths/intimidation/wounds/etc., be if you guys weren't promoting the darn things.

[TheCowsCameHome]

93. Let's talk about something else.

Say, do you think the new Corvette will be a hit? Or how about Wichita State - aren't they something?

[pipoman]

2. The results may be interesting..

[surrealAmerican]

6. I predict we will never hear the results.

These people have an agenda, and it's not science.

[spin]

62. The media will avoid reporting as best they can reporting that the crime rate has fallen. ...

if it does. But they will report any accidents or tragedies caused by these firearms at the top of their voices.

[hack89]

12. Didn't Joe Biden endorse shotguns for self defense?

guess we will see if the VP is right.

[baldguy]

47. No, he did not.

And you know it.

[hack89]

49. "Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barreled shotgun." Joe Biden

One questioner named Kate asked how gun owners would be able to sufficiently protect themselves if Congress passed a bill banning certain weapons and high-capacity gun magazines.

"Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barreled shotgun," Biden responded. "I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/joe-biden-guns_n_2719330.html

[Fla_Democrat]

56. Here's a video of it

At the end, he clearly states.. "Buy a shotgun." Well, at the end of his statement, not the end of the clip...

[spin]

65. Yes he did and his advise was terribly flawed. ...

You can get in a world of trouble if you walk out on your balcony and fire two shots into the air and you never shoot through the door to stop an intruder.

If a NRA representative would have said the same thing, the media would have jumped on it with both feet. But since it was Joe Biden, the media gave him no grief.

Shooter takes VP Joe Biden’s advice — and lands in trouble with cops
By Cheryl K. Chumley-The Washington Times Friday, March 1, 2013

Vice President Joseph R. Biden told a Field & Stream reporter in a published report on Monday that if “you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”
That same day, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va., did just that — and was charged with reckless handling of a firearm.

WAVY 10 reported that the man was in his bedroom when two armed masked men leaned through the window and warned him to close the bedroom door. The 22-year-old did — but not before he stepped into the hallway. He then grabbed his shotgun and fired several shots through his closed bedroom door, toward the window.

U.S. News reports he was subsequently arrested on reckless handling of firearm charges. The two suspects have not been caught, but no injuries have been reported.

Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/1/shooter-takes-vp-joe-bidens-advice-and-lands-troub/#ixzz2P8h8UZ9i

[baldguy]

71. His statement was in response to a question about banning assault weapons & high capacity magazines

It was not an endorsement of shotguns and was not intended to be an endorsement. He did not say shotguns should be carried everywhere, for all situations, or that they be used to even shoot directly at possible intruders. And it certainly can't be twisted to mean that everyone needs to have a gun.

(And note that the RW Washington Moonie Times can't even get the source of the quote correct.)

[hack89]

73. He said if you need a gun for self defense then get a double barrel shotgun.

it is black and white.

[baldguy]

87. If you think he intended that to mean that everyone should so out and get a shotgun, you're an idiot

What's black & white is that he was answering a question about assault weapons.

Stop trying to put that patented RW NRA spin on it.

[hack89]

97. "Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barreled shotgun."

why don't you take the time to read what I actually wrote. No one is forcing these women to accept these shotguns. However, if one of them decides they need for self defense, then I am sure the VP would tell here she made the right choice.

No one is saying everyone should get a shotgun. The fact you had to build that strawman is telling.

What is your problem with this experiment? Are you afraid it will work?

[baldguy]

98. And what was the question he was esponding to?

Did you even bother to find that out?

[hack89]

99. "Kate asked how gun owners would be able to sufficiently protect themselves.."

if Congress passed an AWB.

So it was a question about self dense. Biden says "get a shot gun".

"Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barreled shotgun," Biden responded. "I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

The vice president said that by firing two shotgun blasts, anyone who might be trying to break in would be scared off.

"I have two shotguns at home," he said.

Now of course, the VPs advice would be illegal in many states, but his heart was in the right place.

Why are you so concerned about this experiment? Afraid it will work?

[spin]

75. Joe Biden clearly stated in the video:

"If you want to protect yourself get a double barrelled shotgun..." He also said at the end of the video, "Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun."

You might feel that that is not an endorsement of shotguns, but I do.

He might have said, "If you want to protect yourself get a can of good pepper spray, not a firearm."
He didn't.

Biden's advise about buying a shotgun is solid. I own a double barrel 12 guage coach gun for home defense. It is possibly the most lethal close range firearm available. However I should point out that the recoil level of a shotgun is intimidating to a novice shooter and an AR-15 might be the better choice in a rural environment for home defense as it has a very low level of recoil.

Obviously shotguns are not the best weapon to be carried everywhere for all situations. That has nothing to do with home defense.

I will agree that he didn't say to shoot directly at possible intruders but that would have been better advise than what he did suggest. Shooting rounds into the air endangers your neighbors as what goes up comes down.

Biden suggested shooting through the door to deter an intruder in an interview with Field and Stream Magazine. This is extremely poor advise as you really don't know who is on the other side of the door and what their intentions are. You might well kill some teenager or a drunk who believed he was trying to get into his own home. By waiting to be sure that your target was truly dangerous you could have averted a tragedy.

The F&S Gun Rights Interviews: Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States
Article by Anthony Licata. Uploaded on February 25, 2013

***snip***

F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?

V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal....emphasis added

[tom2255]

78. Biden tells people to buy a gun then shoot through doors at things you can't see.

I don't think I would feel safe living near him.

[spin]

81. Biden needs to take a good course on gun safety. ...

He also might benefit by going to a good gun range with some inexperienced people and watch how they handle a 12 guage shotgun as opposed to an AR-15. Then he can survey them to see which weapon they would prefer for home defense. He might be surprised.

However I should point out that in my opinion an AR-15 is a poor choice for a home defense weapon in a crowded urban environment as any rifle is. You put your near neighbors at risk by using a rifle.

An AR-15 is an excellent choice for home defense in a rural area.

[Apophis]

70. Actually he did.

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. Stupid beyond belief..........

"They are now empowered with the knowledge and tools to put holes in those that would do them harm," Coplen said.

Coplen is one sick SOB. I suspect he's some sort of skinhead-militant masquerading as a preppy grad student.

Fuck him.

[Eleanors38]

37. Is it acceptable for anyone to have a shotgun for home defense?

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. Yes, I do think it is. Do you for one minute

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

believe anyone too poor to buy their own shotgun will have the resources (translated - the $$$) to buy a proper, secure, storage device for same? Or will this Kyle clown provide one?

Sorry, this program is FAIL from the getgo.

[Niceguy1]

79. they probably came

With trigger locks which bave been proven to be effective.

[Eleanors38]

104. Who knows the future of the "program." But we do see where the limits to home defense...

are drawn by some:

If you are too poor, suck it up.

[madville]

29. Sounds like they are following Joe Biden's advice

I just hope the training class doesn't endorse shooting through doors.

I'm curious what kind of ammo they provide for self defense, there has always been a big debate over which is better for densly populated areas, buckshot or birdshot?

[Duckhunter935]

30. just following

Vice President Bidens advice. Good for them.

[MineralMan]

34. I'd like to see a photo of one of their training classes for

this program. Yes, I would.

ETA: Ah...here's one, from the last link in the story.

[Eleanors38]

36. Cali, is it acceptable for anyone to have a shotgun for home defense?

[cali]

68. sure. Is it acceptable to add to the proliferation of guns in such a wanton fashion?

Not in my book.

[Eleanors38]

103. What is so wanton? There is plenty of evidence of guns in some of these communities...

unfortunately, held by the wrong people. Evidently, some people in that neighborhood want a deterrent. And I do not consider it wanton that poor people in poor and dangerous communities should have what you think is acceptable in other... circumstances.

[ileus]

38. Now that's being 2A progressive.

Helping people defend themselves.

[socialist_n_TN]

43. All the better to arm the working class.......

and lumpenproletariat. What these RWers don't realize is that they are setting up the means for an eventual worker's militia as soon as the neighborhood and workplace councils take shape.

[RZM]

67. Yes. That's exactly what will happen

[Paladin]

44. I'll Keep This Thread In Mind......

....the next time you DU Gun Enthusiasts get your knickers in a knot about being accused of advocating More Guns For Everybody as a solution. That's exactly what's going on, here.

[TheCowsCameHome]

51. And who is going to provide the proper, secure storage devices for these freebie guns?

Answer: NO ONE.

Just prop it up next to the headboard, the kids won't touch it. And the ammo? Leave it in the cupboard next to the cereal.

[Tempest]

53. They'll be sold on the street for food and other necessities. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

55. You could certainly persuade a lot of folks to "donate" their items,

packing one of those babies.

[TheKentuckian]

58. Good. Poverty shouldn't be an obstacle to the right of effective self defense.

[Electric Monk]

66. Arm the homeless?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Morello#Guitars

[Blue_Tires]

101. Please tell me you're being facetious...

[Apophis]

69. Instead of solving a problem they're exasperating it.

[hack89]

74. Sounds like the gun owning America gun controllers want

1. Thorough background checks
2. Firearms training
3. Weapons that cannot be easily concealed or used in mass shootings.

If this is too dangerous then what exactly so you want? An total ban on firearms?

[Robb]

76. "We sent drugs to the ghetto, but too many survived. Let's try guns."

[BainsBane]

86. exactly

Tell me that's not deliberate.

[JI7]

89. probably the same ones who complain about food stamps and "welfare queens"

[Blue_Tires]

95. Thank you...

I was wondering if anybody in this thread would "get it"

[Eleanors38]

105. Actually, there is something to be said about this subject...

Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CRLJ, p. 80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun … The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)
_______________

...but I suspect it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

[Peter cotton]

77. Good for them.

[KamaAina]

83. How generous of him.

Now the city of Houston will have to hold a gun buyback. The residents will make out like bandits. Mr. Coplen will have donated a couple of hundred bucks to a whole bunch of families of color. Which I'm sure is exactly what he intended.

[gulliver]

91. Who wouldn't take a free gun?

And the experiment doesn't matter if they only report whether crime goes up or down. They also need to report how many of their guns are stolen, sold, used in suicides/murders, and cause gun accidents.

I'll bet half of the guns end up sold and the money pocketed.

[Blue_Tires]

94. This is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard today

Funny that a grad student came up with this concept...Just what in fuck's name is he studying? (It ain't sociology, I can tell you that)

But ultimately this stunt is win-win all around...They give poor people in dangerous neighborhoods free tools to reduce their own population (and if one of the people killed happens to be a criminal, so much the better), they'll get their media and political brownie points, and since this will be impossible to properly relate to local crime rates, it will be *very* easy to shape the stats as a great success...

This is the part where i mention my rainbow-hugging leftist ideas of good education, economic opportunity, etc. as the way to make crime-ridden poor neighborhods "safe"...Sadly, for decades this country has become mindlocked on simple solutions to complex issues, so no one wants to hear it...

[TheCowsCameHome]

96. ...and perhaps the entire 1st quarter of the year.

It certainly is a contender.

[mainer]

100. Is he performing background checks?

to make sure he's not handing his guns directly into the hands of criminals?

[AnnieBW]

108. What's the difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon?

They referred to giving out "defensive weapons". To me, that would include things like pepper spray, not a gun. So, gun enthusiasts, what's the difference between an "offensive" gun and a "defensive" one?

I guess, like white magic and black magic, it depends on the intent.