14 yo uses skeet gun to deter home invasion.

[ileus]

http://thecabin.net/news/local/2012-05-01/conway-14-year-old-uses-shotgun-scare-armed-intruders#.T6FmVx0tFeb




CONWAY – A teenager is being called a hero by the family he protected from armed intruders early Monday morning. Brady, 14, is a trained trap shooter who used his own shotgun to intimidate two black males who he says broke into his family's house just after midnight Monday morning. "They both had silver revolvers pointed at me, and we just kind of pointed at each other for like three seconds and then I yelled, ‘Hey!'" said Brady, "And they and they took off running."

[bowens43]

1. 14-year-old Covington boy's fatal shooting ruled accidental

BOGALUSA, La. -- The bullet that killed a 14-year-old Covington boy apparently was fired when he slung a cocked and loaded .22-caliber rifle over his shoulder and it went off, hitting him in the back of the head, the Washington Parish Sheriff's Office says.



http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/03/14-year-olds_fatal_shooting_ru.html

[ileus]

2. safety first....death later.

[Remmah2]

57. From the hand book of the anti2A gaggle.

What does this have to do with the OP subject?

[spin]

3. Fortunately nobody ended up shot ...

I was also glad to see that the family upgraded their security system after in incident.

It is very foolish to invade an occupied home. Hopefully the intruders learned a valuable lesson.

[bongbong]

4. Yes!

> Hopefully the intruders learned a valuable lesson.

Don't worry, they did. Next time they'll bring a bigger gun, maybe one of those semi-automatics that certain gun-advocacy organization members fantasize about.

[spin]

5. A shotgun can be a very lethal weapon ...

I would be very hesitant to try to rob that house again while it was occupied even if I upgraded my weapon from a revolver to a semi-auto.

Also the memory of having a shotgun pointed at them might be a good deterrent. I have had a double barreled shotgun pointed at me at close range 45 years ago. I still remember how enormous the holes at the end of those barrels looked.

When I was in the Air Force stationed at Keesler AFB, I used to like to explore the state. I was driving down a back road in Mississippi with a friend and the road ended as a circular driveway in someone's yard. A little old man with a 12 gauge coach gun ran up to my car and drew down on me with his weapon. He asked, "What are you doing in my yard, boy?" Are you poaching my chickens?"

I very politely explained that I was just driving down the road and it ended up at his house. He said, "You better get the hell out of here right now, boy!" That sounded like an excellent idea to me, so I did.

I don't really think that he was worried about his chickens. He probably had a moonshine still on his property.

[bongbong]

8. Uh huh

> I would be very hesitant to try to rob that house again while it was occupied even if I upgraded my weapon from a revolver to a semi-auto.


Well, maybe they'll try a change in tactics too, like shooting first and asking questions later. Then they can get the SYG laws to defend themselves. With a good lawyer, they should get off ("We were lost, and knocked on this guys door for directions. He drew on us, and we were threatened with great bodily harm, thus we had to stand our ground and save our skins&quot

[spin]

13. If two guys broke into my home and I confronted them with my shotgun ...

and noticed that they had handguns, I probably would shoot first if possible.

Notice that I specified the term "broke into my house". If they were inside and armed, I would have every reason to believe that they intended to commit harm and I would have good reason to fear for my life or my health. The castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in my state would support me and not them.

Technically it is a poor idea to play Wyatt Earp and attempt to confront intruders. It's a far better tactic to call 911 and wait in your bedroom with your shotgun pointed at your locked door. However, there are often other people in my home that I feel responsible for. I live in a large old home that used to be a hotel and we often have roomers. Strange noises may be caused by these people or someone visiting them.

I usually chose to check really odd noises out with a revolver in my pants pocket. That way if it is someone innocent, I just say hello and go to the kitchen and get a glass of water. If I walked around with my coach gun checking the house out, I would have needlessly scared the shit out of several people in the past.

[Straw Man]

6. Indeed.

"They both had silver revolvers pointed at me..."

Next time they'll bring a bigger gun, maybe one of those semi-automatics that certain gun-advocacy organization members fantasize about.

A semi-automatic fires one round each time the trigger is pulled, just like ... a double-action revolver.

What 19th-century technology shall we ban next?

[bongbong]

7. Yep

I love elaborations about the fine points of killing people from the gun defenders! Who cares?

> What 19th-century technology shall we ban next?

You live up to your screen name. Great Straw Man! No one is calling for banning anything. Just better "regulation", as the 2nd Amendment says. The NRA has your panties all twisted in a paranoid knot.

Arguing with gun religionists is like shooting fish in a barrel with a semi-automatic, except easier.

[Straw Man]

9. So ...

You live up to your screen name. Great Straw Man! No one is calling for banning anything. Just better "regulation", as the 2nd Amendment says. The NRA has your panties all twisted in a paranoid knot.

... the Assault Weapons Ban was a figment of my imagination? A ten-year hallucination? Remember that its grandfather clauses were late-stage compromises, added to the chagrin of Diane "Turn-'em-all-in" Feinstein.

So how would you regulate semi-autos, and why? Or don't you like to discuss the details, preferring to revel in your own proud ignorance?

I love elaborations about the fine points of killing people from the gun defenders! Who cares?

I guess it's the latter.

Arguing with gun religionists is like shooting fish in a barrel with a semi-automatic, except easier.

Generally, argument is presumed to have a point. I see none in your post.

[bongbong]

10. HA HA

> So how would you regulate semi-autos, and why?

If you paid me a legislator's paycheck, I'd answer your question. For now, you can peruse the Brady Bill website for details.

> like to discuss the details, preferring to revel in your own proud ignorance?

Touchy! You gun-religionists sure love to insult people who try to harm your poor, innocent little guns! Oh, how it is!

> Generally, argument is presumed to have a point. I see none in your post.

Well, I think you struck gold with the first negative-point post. Your post is so point-free that it actually removed material from the posts around it!

[Straw Man]

11. Proud ignorance ...

... is a sad, sad thing.

It's kind of like arguing with creationists, only worse. They tend to be Republicans, so I don't have to be ashamed of them and embarrassed for them.

[bongbong]

19. I agree

Proud ignorance is a sad, sad thing.

It's kind of like arguing with gun-religionists, only worse. They tend to be Republicans, so I don't have to be ashamed of them and embarrassed for them.

[Straw Man]

25. If you're going to use my wording ...

... I'm going to have to charge you a royalty.

The analogy doesn't fit, because I'm not the one telling you that facts don't matter. You're the one making that claim.

[bongbong]

29. lsld

> m not the one telling you that facts don't matter. You're the one making that

Nope, wrong again. Show me where I said facts don't matter. You can just use the post number in which I said that. Shouldn't be too hard.

[Clames]

34. Easier just to show you were you disregard facts...

...entirely.

Just better "regulation", as the 2nd Amendment says.

Fact is that is NOT what the 2A says. Fact is that you don't have a clue as to the proper context nor are you willing to educate yourself on the matter. Very obvious facts don't matter to you. Worthless rhetoric based on technical incompetency seems to be more applicable though.

[bongbong]

37. BS

> Fact is that is NOT what the 2A says. F

Wow, you must be using that NRA version of the Constitution! The 2nd Amendment CLEARLY says "well-regulated", which of course is talked about in Federalist Paper #29, and means "trained like an army".

[Clames]

44. Another anti-gunner talking point that lacks...

...a factual foundation. Your side has beaten that dead horse into a consistency that pink slime doesn't rate. Sorry, that battle was decided in the courts and the American majority agrees with it.

[bongbong]

49. LOL

> ur side has beaten that dead horse into a consistency that pink slime doesn't rate

Proclamations of victory are always hilarious on Internet chatboards.

[Straw Man]

41. Glad to oblige.

Show me where I said facts don't matter. You can just use the post number in which I said that. Shouldn't be too hard.

OK. I pointed out to you that the practical operation of a double-action revolver -- one round fired for each trigger pull -- is the same as the practical operation of a semi-automatic firearm, rendering your point that "next time they'll use a semi-auto" moot. Here's how you responded:

I love elaborations about the fine points of killing people from the gun defenders! Who cares?

This is a clear indication of disregard for the facts of the matter.

Capisci?

[bongbong]

46. Wrong again

> This is a clear indication of disregard for the facts of the matter.

So creating a hypothetical situation counts as "facts"?



The amount of trigger force to shoot a semi-auto is considerably less than a revolver, so unless you think trigger pull force makes no difference in the rate of fire, you're WRONG.

I love correcting gun religionists on the objects of their veneration. The spinning gun-religionists go thru to justify their love is truly astounding!

[Straw Man]

52. Oh ye of little knowledge ...

The amount of trigger force to shoot a semi-auto is considerably less than a revolver, so unless you think trigger pull force makes no difference in the rate of fire, you're WRONG.

Tell Jerry Miculek:

Have you ever heard of a DAO semi-auto? I won't tell you what it stands for -- you can look it up. While you're at it, look up the "Glock NY trigger."

Lots of variables, doncha know. Much to learn, but of course I expect you'll state your preference for remaining ignorant.

[Clames]

59. Technical incompetence...

...is a common trait of anti-gunners. They are very proud of this ignorance too.

[bongbong]

61. Oh boy!

A super special gun that doesn't require more force! Oh boy! Wow, you really dug deep for that one!

Citing an exception to the rule just proves I'm right even more. Keep trying! Your religion (guns) needs lots of defense!

[Straw Man]

64. Yippee!

A super special gun that doesn't require more force! Oh boy! Wow, you really dug deep for that one!

A person who is ignorant of the fundamental mechanics of handguns and the ongoing and complicated issue of trigger pull weight!

"Super special"? Trigger jobs are one of the most common modifications gunsmiths perform.

Did you look up "DAO semi-auto" and "Glock NY trigger"? Are you starting to become familiar with the issues? Are you learning anything?

[bongbong]

67. Lose

> A person who is ignorant of the fundamental mechanics of handguns and the ongoing and complicated issue of trigger pull weight!

That statement only makes sense if ALL semi-automatics cannot be fired faster than revolvers.

You lose. Again.

[gejohnston]

74. actually,

that is pretty much the case. If there is a difference, it is so small it doesn't matter.

[bongbong]

80. Prove it

> If there is a difference, it is so small it doesn't matter.

Prove it. You've got a LOT of work to do, especially seeing as how semi-automatics were designed in part to overcome those types of problems (trigger pull force & speed) in revolvers.

When one runs out of NRA Talking Points, the lack of logic bears its ugly head.

[gejohnston]

82. what NRA talking points?

especially seeing as how semi-automatics were designed in part to overcome those types of problems (trigger pull force & speed) in revolvers.

Prove it. What types of problems are those?

[Straw Man]

77. So you haven't looked anything up, I see.

> A person who is ignorant of the fundamental mechanics of handguns and the ongoing and complicated issue of trigger pull weight!

That statement only makes sense if ALL semi-automatics cannot be fired faster than revolvers.

Um -- no. It's a statement of fact in regard to the complex issue of ease of firing of various handguns. The most important distinction is "single action easy, double action hard," but even that is an oversimplification. Single-action revolvers can have some of the easiest trigger pulls going, but they must be manually cocked. Double-action revolvers can and often do rival double-action-only semi-autos for ease of firing, but will only rival double-action/single-action semi-autos for the first shot, after which the single-action mode of the semi-auto takes over and the semi-auto wins the race. And just as double-action revolvers are often slicked up to fire more easily, double-action semi-autos are often deliberately made harder to fire in order to make them more acceptable to liability-conscious police departments.

The bottom line is that your whole "they'll come back with semi-autos" shtick betrays your ignorance of the mechanical and operational issues involved. It might interest you to know that by the crudely worded laws of some states, double-action revolvers are in fact semi-autos, since they fire one round with each pull of the trigger, requiring no other manipulation to chamber the next round. This ignores the more technical definition of a semi-auto firearm as one that uses some of the power of the cartridge to also extract and eject the spent casing, not merely place the next round in a position to be fired. Another crucial technical distinction is that a semi-auto firearm has only one chamber, whereas a revolver has anywhere from five to ten.

Everything else -- round capacity, rate of fire, power, reliability, etc. -- is widely variable, both within and between the two designations.

[Rittermeister]

78. Funny how I can shoot better with my S&W 686 than I can with my father's DA/SA Beretta 92FS

[bongbong]

79. Name still appropo

The burden is on you to prove that all semi-automatics take as long to fire & are as hard to fire as revolvers, since semi-automatics were designed in part to overcome those type of limitations in revolvers.

GO! You have a LOT of research to do. Until you present your proof, you're just another gun-religionist, spouting NRA Talking Points 24x7.

[Clames]

81. What a bullshit proposition.

Enough proof: my USP .45 has a DA trigger that is every bit as heavy at ~11lbs than any contemporary revolver. Until you present reasonable, fact-based arguments you're just another anti-gun religionist, spouting VPC talking points 24x7.

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Semi-auto pistols were designed for rapid reloading.

At the time of the design, in the late 1890s, revolvers had to be reloaded one cartridge at a time. The advantage of the semi-auto was that the cartridges were in a magazine that could be preloaded and ready to be inserted into the pistol when the one being used was emptied.

All the other stuff that is being discussed varies according to the design.

[Straw Man]

85. I could say the same of yours.

The burden is on you to prove that all semi-automatics take as long to fire & are as hard to fire as revolvers, since semi-automatics were designed in part to overcome those type of limitations in revolvers.

There is no burden on me to do anything of the kind. It was your characterization, and I pointed out how simplistic and ill-informed it was. The burden is on YOU to prove that ALL revolvers have a slower rate of fire and lower capacity than ALL semi-autos. Capisci?

Sheesh. Expecting the people you're arguing against to help you prove your lame-ass points for you. Typical.

[shadowrider]

12. So you won't disclose how you'd regulate unless you're paid?

I guess you do nothing to further the gun control cause except use a keyboard. No wonder you guys are losing.

[bongbong]

20. Yes

> I guess you do nothing to further the gun control cause except use a keyboard. No wonder you guys are losing.

You've mis-identified the cause. Just like repigs, the US Chamber of Commerce, weapons companies, etc, there's a lot of money behind gun-religionists.

[Straw Man]

24. Do tell.

You've mis-identified the cause. Just like repigs, the US Chamber of Commerce, weapons companies, etc, there's a lot of money behind gun-religionists.

Really? Where's my check?

[bongbong]

28. Really?

> Really? Where's my check?

Some people, like repigs and gun-religionists, don't need money to trumpet their faith. The guys who run the show get paid, however. People like Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.

[gejohnston]

14. gun-religionists, you gave me an idea

"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion."--L. Ron Hubbard.

Hey, it worked for him.

For a small Donation of $4,500 we will send a your own free Easter Pistol (non firing replica, no FFL required.) Just make your check or money order out to The Golden Calf Cathedral.
It may not catch on in places like Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky or former CSA since John Brown's birthday will be a major holiday.

[rl6214]

18. "sure love to insult people"

That's all ya got.

"Well, I think you struck gold with the first negative-point post. Your post is so point-free that it actually removed material from the posts around it!"

And that's just stupid, despite all your little

[bongbong]

21. Hmmmmm

> And that's just stupid

One thing I can be sure of with the gun-religionists is more insults, even responding to posts of mine where I call them out for their insults!

Irony is lost on repigs, gun-religionists, etc.

[rl6214]

26. Gun religionists

You got a definition to that...

other than in your own mind...

You make something up so you think it is a real term...

You think if you say you are calling someone out for insults it makes your feeble attempts at an insult OK?

What a joke you are.

[bongbong]

30. Faithful

> You think if you say you are calling someone out for insults it makes your feeble attempts at an insult OK

Where did I try to insult you gun-religionists? You guys should love that term, it identifies the faith you so dearly hold on to.

[Straw Man]

43. Insults.

Where did I try to insult you gun-religionists?

Right here, for starters:

The NRA has your panties all twisted in a paranoid knot.

Arguing with gun religionists is like shooting fish in a barrel with a semi-automatic, except easier.

If you don't think those are insults, you need some remedial vocabulary work.

And just to save you the trouble of thinking too hard, yes, that was an insult.

[bongbong]

48. Observations

> The NRA has your panties all twisted in a paranoid knot.

Not an insult, just an observation. The NRA has gun-religionists confused about the 2nd Amendment, which was clearly judged to be about militias by decades of SCOTUS and other rulings, until an ultra-conservative court handed down Heller.

> Arguing with gun religionists is like shooting fish in a barrel with a semi-automatic, except easier.

I've never lost an argument yet, so just another observation.

[Straw Man]

53. And more observations.

I've never lost an argument yet, so just another observation.

What are you, some kind of anti-gun smackdown superhero? It is to laugh.

If by "lost an argument" you mean "stopped making crudely insulting and factually deficient posts," yes, I guess I'd have to agree with you there.

[bongbong]

62. Entitled

> If by "lost an argument" you mean "stopped making crudely insulting and factually deficient posts," yes, I guess I'd have to agree with you there.

You're entitled to your opinion no matter how little evidence you have for it.

[Union Scribe]

35. So, let's run this down.

1. No answer.
2. No discussion.
3. Insults
4. Ridiculous amount of smileys.

Ergo 5. Nothing you post can be taken seriously.

[bongbong]

38. Yawn.

The gun-religionists cannot answer any of my facts, historical, or logical. You NRA shills are all alike. Run out of talking points, declare that I didn't make any points, and run.

[Union Scribe]

45. You've inconvenienced so many electrons

and yet you've communicated nothing. Nada. If you have a point, go ahead and try to string together a sentence that isn't a clot of insults and pouting and maybe you'll get an answer.

[bongbong]

50. Yawno

> entence that isn't a clot of insults and pouting and maybe you'll get an answer.

Whenever gun religionists lose an argument, they either:

1) call what I say an "insult", or
2) declare victory & run away, or
3) keep trotting out tired NRA talking points that have been refuted over & over

I know one of the "strategies" of the NRA is to get people to post 1, 2, & 3 over & over, and make Liberals waste time correcting them.

[Union Scribe]

54. How can we lose an argument you haven't even begun?

'gun religoonistz is bad!' is not an argument, or a fact, or anything but an inane catchphrase that doesn't even rank in the top ten I see in this group. And I'd say you're doing a fair impression of your own number 2 at the moment.

[bongbong]

63. aa

> gun religoonistz is bad!' is not an argument,

I never said that. You did, and I agree it is a crazy thing to say. Do you always say such inane things?

[Union Scribe]

65. Well I'm glad I least taught you a word.

Inane. Maybe you can spin that around a little, use it more appropriately next time. The fact remains that your entire platform is a soggy insult repeated over and over like it's an argument. You are not good at this.

[bongbong]

68. Lessons

> Well I'm glad I least taught you a word.



The only thing I learn from acolytes of the NRA is how slavish devotion can be.

[crayfish]

16. It's a rotten shame he didn't kill the thugs.

You may disagree, I've noticed that some so-called progressives tend to side with the criminals...and no, I can not explain it.

[rl6214]

17. Gun defenders now AND gun religionists?

I never knew a gun needed defending, I always thought it was the gun that defended us. Who'd a known

"Just better "regulation", as the 2nd Amendment says."

You just keep on working that losing arguement but that one's been explained to you many times before.

Talk about panties all twisted up in a bunch

[bongbong]

22. Gun religionists ignore history & precedent

> You just keep on working that losing arguement but that one's been explained to you many times before.

Maybe you should explain it to all the SCOTUS justices who ruled that the militia clause mattered, up until the super-conservatives overturned decades of precedent and produced the Heller/Koch decision.

I know that gun religionists don't know much about history. It's confirmed over and over with the responses I get on DU.

[ileus]

23. How long have individuals been allowed to own firearms?

[bongbong]

32. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[ileus]

33. 2? 3? 4 years?

[bongbong]

39. Yes!!!

5, 6, 7, 8, have a cake.

[ileus]

42. No really how long have indivicuals been allowed the 2A rights?

[bongbong]

47. Ever since it was put into effect

The 2nd Amendment is very clear. It is about militias.

[PavePusher]

51. Please cite to this "right of the militia".....

Where is it mentioned in the Constitution?

Where is it stated in law or judicial precedent?

[bongbong]

60. Read the Constitution

It's there! You can even use a search function if you can't find the word "militia" by eye!

[PavePusher]

66. I see a "...right of the people...".

Nothing about a "...right of the militia...".

Are you doing a word-jumble puzzle?

[bongbong]

70. familiar

> Nothing about a "...right of the militia..

Yes, yes, I'm familiar with the NRA re-definition of the Constitution.

[PavePusher]

75. I'm quoting it. Plain language.

Please cite to legal definitions/precedence that agree with your interpretation.

[Rittermeister]

69. So we're going to quibble over grammatical details

When Madison makes it very clear in his personal correspondence exactly what the amendment means?

[bongbong]

71. Wake up!

> So we're going to quibble over grammatical details

Guess you slept thru pretty much every SCOTUS decision about the 2nd Amendment until the ultra-conservatives overturned decades of precedent, followed orders, and wrote Heller.

> When Madison makes it very clear in his personal correspondence exactly what the amendment means?

Federalist Paper #29 makes it even more clear.

[Rittermeister]

72. The SCOTUS

also didn't enforce the first amendment until the 1940s. Your point?

[Rittermeister]

73. Additionally, see Federalist Paper #46

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not c

[PavePusher]

76. Cites, please. n/t

[rl6214]

27. when are you going to post a real definiton to your term "gun religionists"

Something made up on your own in an attempt to insult a group you are afraid of

such a small feeble attempt

and you always whine about people insulting you

what a joke

[bongbong]

31. Faithful 2

> Something made up on your own in an attempt to insult a group you are afraid of

1) Now I'm afraid? Why should I be afraid of such law-abiding people as gun-religionists?

2) You gun-religionists should love that term, since it identifies you folks as people of faith - faith in the Holy Gun.

[Rittermeister]

58. I have faith in my can opener

Never let me down yet. Church keys, on the other hand - those things are tricky sum bitches.

[rl6214]

86. So you got nothing but your feeble attempts...Got it.

[Union Scribe]

36. You've hit on the best adjective

"feeble"--it perfectly describes the tantrum in this thread.

[bongbong]

40. OK

Another gun-religionist heard from.

[Remmah2]

56. Home invasions.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=18148289

When I was a kid my parents and the uncle I worked for on the side (farm) neither had to lock the door. Now we live in a world where people will beat you to death with their fist. Some times home invaders come in groups.

No guns involved here, only two old dead people.

[Meiko]

15. It's sad that

kids have to get involved in this sort of thing. I am glad the young man wasn't hurt.

[Rittermeister]

55. I'm curious

Why do you guys bother to argue with BongBong? I'm hardly a gun-religionist, whatever that is (I only own a few long arms) but it's obvious that he's either one, trolling you, or two, he's the variety of low-IQ bigot who resorts to ad hominem attacks as a means of infuriating those he's opposed to.

[Xela]

83. ^^^^Like. notxt

notxt