More Heated Debate Among 'Friends' Over Gun Control

March 10, 2013

This 'story' was posted by a friend. Like a previously posted inflammatory pic, it was the start of another heated conversation among 'friends'.

There's previous context to this conversation from earlier posts that are not included here. And one of the active participants in the 'debate' apparently deleted all his comments before this conversation was captured. (Maybe one of them de-friended the other. I don't know.) I wish I could show the rest.

‎11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS

BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine.Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the ...street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........? 

An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control!

Thought for the day.... Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'I like this kind of e-mail! American citizens defending themselves and their homes. BEING A TRUE AMERICAN, I THINK YOU'LL PASS THIS ON!

• SG:
  

  You are allowed to have a shotgun in your home in IL too so idk what this has to do with gun control. Also, does the fact that they were illegal make the girl more "American" for killing them? Wouldn't her killing anyone trying to harm her be equally honorable? Not sure why that point was overly emphasized.

  March 10 at 10:03am
• BN:
  

  I imagine you posted this in response to yesterday's exchange between us. I think you might have done a little more research, as the link below makes clear. Moreover, I thought we were talking about concealed carry laws in Illinois, but this story is about people defending themselves with guns in their own homes. Finally, even though you and another friend of yours noted the difference between studies and anecdotes, you continue to bring up anecdotes. Here's the link:
  
  http://mtstandard.com/news/local/fake-story-still-circulating-on-internet/article_bc1ff1a9-cbe1-5f34-a63e-9e90b5530103.html
  

  
  

  Fake story still circulating on Internet

  mtstandard.com

  March 10 at 10:06am
• BN:
  

  SG, the story refers to illegal alien home invaders in order to appeal to xenophobia and prejudice. Later on, it rips the media. For right-wingers, this is a three-for-one story: it appeals to gun rights absolutists, caricatures Latinos, and furthers right wing victimology about left-wing mainstream media. I believe Rick has unwittingly and unknowingly fallen prey to furthering these other messages.

  March 10 at 10:22am
• ME:
  

  None of is is responsible for the full comments associated with the stories we share from other sites. He didn't write it, so attacking him for the "3 for 1" isn't quite fair.
  
  And as prevalent as fake stories are on the Internet, I think we've all fallen for one at one time or another.
  
  Here's just a taste of 'citizen defends self or others' stories that I think will stand up to scrutiny. There are MANY others. And that part of the "3 for 1" comments is basically true. You don't hear about these defense stories on the major news networks NATIONALLY, like we do about many stories that seem to support the gun control agenda. The defense stories are sometimes covered by local affiliates of the major networks.
  
  2nd Amendment Rights @2ndRight
  Miami (FL) man shoots and kills armed robber http://ypsine.ws/XT4oR3
  
  Intruder shot after breaking into South Carolina home and attacking woman inside (SC)http://ypsine.ws/X9ZWj9
  
  Armed Employee Chases Robber Out of Huntington Business (WV) http://ypsine.ws/X9Yld9
  
  Suspect Shot After Kicking In Front Door Of Residence (SC) http://ypsine.ws/X9Y5uA
  
  Man shot by homeowner during home invasion turns out to be serial burglar (KY)http://ypsine.ws/X9XoSg
  
  Armed citizen in Washington shoots intruder who threatened to kill woman inside (WA)http://ypsine.ws/X9Xidh
  
  Home intruder dies in shooting (TX) http://ypsine.ws/X9V1Pm
  
  Armed restaurant employee stops would be robber in his tracks (PA) http://ypsine.ws/X9UVHu
  
  Intruder Shot By Homeowner In District Heights (MD) http://ypsine.ws/X9UsoA
  

  
  

  Miami police: Would-be robber is shot by victim, dies - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

  www.miamiherald.com

  March 10 at 11:53am
• ME:
  

  It's pretty obvious, GG, that you won't be convinced by any argument or data. You're a hopeless case, content with you and your family being victims. It's okay though because you're all surrounded by law abiding citizens who are willing to protect even the likes of you and your rights. And those people can be much more responsive than the paid law enforcement you'd prefer do it even though it's clear from past statements you don't completely trust them either. The firearms you fear are already in your environment, in all the places you mentioned. We'd prefer there be a better balance of power. It's not "more guns" that we need, although that is our right. It's firearms in the hands of the right people and at the right time and place.
  
  As for your "Screw "liberty and justice for all"" comment. Screwing liberty and justice is absolutely what the gun control agenda is all about. Our 2nd Amendment rights and our rights to defend ourselves and others IS liberty and IS just, for all.
  
  AR-15s, so-called "assault weapons", have been used at least twice this year in self defense that I'm aware of. One was by a 15-year old to protect himself and his younger sister. I believe the other incident was a college aged student. To gun rights people, the AR-15 is just another semi-automatic rifle that has desirable, nonfunctional characteristics. To the gun control crowd it's evil incarnate.
  
  And it's a "magazine", not a "clip". You're reading from the wrong source materials and regurgitating nonsense. No surprise there.

  March 10 at 12:20pm
• ME:
  

  Here's the gun control crowd protecting "liberty and justice for all". How timely. I read this within 5 minutes of my last post here. A Colorado state Senator's argument rejecting an amendment to their current gun control proposals that would have allowed military veterans to keep so-called "high capacity" magazines (they're actually "standard capacity" magazines).
  
  "Yes," she said, "these are all great and wonderful people, but some of them come back with significant mental health problems and I think we need to check through that first."
  
  So, "some" people have problems and as a result their entire category should be excluded? That's logic and liberty and just... not. If we applied this logic in racial terms the whole left would be in an uproar about it.
  
  This statement was made just days after Senator Dianne Feinstein said something similar in her US Senate committee. Here they show their ignorance for not only firearms (long established) but also of mental health. Feinstein actually said she thinks PTSD is something new from the Iraq War. Has she not heard of "shell shock" or "battle fatigue" or "soldier's disease"? Is she not aware that PTSD is NOT exclusive to military service - that it can happen to anyone who's had a traumatic experience, physical, psychological or emotional? Many lay people know that. But our law makers are ignorant of it or are ignoring it to advance their misguided agenda. Feinstein herself may have suffered PTSD, whether it was diagnosed or not, from witnessing the murder in San Francisco. Maybe that helps explain her twisted 20-year agenda about firearms and gun control.
  
  http://www.examiner.com/article/colorado-dem-vets-should-not-have-magazines-because-some-are-mentally-ill
  
  Feinstein video:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/08/feinstein_veterans_may_have_ptsd_and_should_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html
  

  
  

  Colorado Dem: Vets should not have magazines because 'some' are mentally ill

  www.examiner.com

  March 10 at 12:40pm
• ME:
  

  GG, you've already told me enough about yourself and your environment for me to make my statements confidently. What you're not getting is that law abiding gun toters or would-be gun toters are EVERYWHERE. I can't speak for your immediate neighbors but do you really think there's no one in your entire neighborhood, or workplace, or public transportation, or shopping malls, or schools, or movie theatres, etc. who would be a Good Samaritan with a firearm if presented with the opportunity? That says a lot about you and your perception of the world.
  
  So now you’re resorting to personal insults? You think I’m an “idiot”. You’re not the first to insult me. Thinking back, there have been 3-5 in the past ~3 months. You know who they were and what was in common? Most were conspiracy theorists who think that Sandy Hook either didn’t happen or that it was an intentional government conspiracy. One was an Obama hater. What they had in common was that I was using logic to point out the flaws, lack of evidence or wild generalizations in their arguments. They didn’t like that much. And when faced with logical disagreement they couldn’t respond in kind, so they resorted to insults.

  March 10 at 1:02pm
• BN:
  

  ME, I never said RC was responsible for all of the content. I just said he unwittingly and unknowingly sent it on. From there, one might infer that he doesn't understand all that he is reading. This, then, might cause one to doubt the validity of the support for his position.
  
  Regardless, here is an interesting link from today's news which suggests that fewer American households, by percentage, have guns.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130310
  

  
  

  Rate of Gun Ownership Is Down, Survey Shows

  www.nytimes.com

  March 10 at 1:04pm
• ME:
  

  BN, it's an interesting article and I'll keep it in mind. It claims a lower household ownership than I've read previously but it also acknowledges "various recent national polls reporting rates between 35 percent and 52 percent". That's a pretty wide margin and this survey is on the extreme low end of that range. The extremes of a range are not likely to be the truth. It also acknowledges that the design of surveys and questions can have an impact on the outcome, as I've seen in my own profession.
  
  Even if it has declined to 35% of households, the 2nd Amendment is not a "majority rules" issue. It's a Constitutional right. For those wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment (and there are some even if you're not one of them), there's a process for that. I think it's almost impossible to happen within our lifetimes. I think even overzealous gun control advocates recognize that so they are attempting to attack in as many ways as they can to advance their agenda without pursuit of what might be their ultimate goal.
  
  Again, even if it's true, it'd be interesting to see the reasons for the decline. Some possibilities are given in the article and I think they're valid. I can think of several others that I think are equally valid. Among them are:
  
  * The "gateways" to firearms ownership have declined significantly and steadily for past decades. The article mentions the military as one. Boy Scouts membership has been on the decline for many years. High school shooting teams are practically non-existent today. Shooting ranges have been under assault by gun control advocates for days and many have closed down.
  * Firearms have been demonized by our educators, media and politicians for decades. The "zero tolerance" policies in our schools are ridiculous. There are incidents just this year of school suspensions and other discipline for: a "paper gun" (a rectangle of paper with a smaller rectangle torn out of it to make it an "L" shaped "gun"); a pastry formed into what might have been a gun shape (the student claims they were trying to form it into a mountain); toy WW II soldier decorations on cupcakes; a "Marines" t-shirt with crossed M-16 rifles on it; a young boy pretending to throw a hand grenade at bad guys during recess; and suspension of high school boys who DISARMED another student with a loaded gun who was threatening a student with it. This last incident should have awarded medals. Instead they were disciplined. (My 7th grade daughter received positive recognition from the local police department last year for disarming a fellow student who was carrying a knife and threatening to cut another classmate with it. The police believed the threat to be legitimate.)
  * From personal experience, I know that not all firearms owners will respond in the positive when asked about ownership even with the assurance of an anonymous survey. Some see it as a privacy issue. Others are paranoid of gun registration (associating their phone number or other identifiable information with firearms ownership). Any survey is likely to err slightly to the low side because of this, though perhaps not statistically significantly so.
  * Even growing up in a firearms household, not everyone will go get their own when they leave the nest. It doesn't mean they're against it or that they won't have firearms in their household in the future, perhaps with a later purchase, inheritance or other distribution. They just don't feel the need or perhaps desire right away, or they know they're accessible to them from family or friends when they want them. I have a former military friend who owns several firearms. His wife doesn't like guns. Out of respect for her, he keeps them at a friend's house. He or his wife could have answered these questions about "firearms in the household" honestly either way.

  March 10 at 1:39pm
• BN:
  

  ME, you are right in that your links standup better than RC's original link, which was an obvious ruse. However, of your links, at least two are repeats, one talks about an armed security guard (which has nothing to do with the issue). Originally, we were talking about shotguns. Saturday we were talking about concealed carry. We should be clear and always stick to the original topic. Current gun violence legislation debate is not about taking guns from legal gun owners defending their own homes. By the way, while you are right that stories can be found about citizens defending their homes and families with firearms, just as many can be found about accidental shootings and deaths. Not to mention unintended victims, such as innocent bystanders, caught in gun crossfire. Most of the stories never make the mainstream media on the national level, either. Your points on the reliability of the survey evidence I linked to our worthwhile. However, it should be noted that the reliability of this survey is buttressed by steady findings over many years showing declining gun ownership percentage in American households. Finally, remember that better data it isn't available, in large part, because the government has been outlawed from obtaining it due to recent gun rights legislation in Congress. Generally, if one side of an argument is trying to limit the availability of information about it, that side is afraid the information works against it.
  
  Isn't it ironic that the decline in household percentage of gun ownership can be linked to the decline of military participation and the volunteer armed services? I point this out because much of the Second Amendment comes from the need for regulated and armed militias.

  March 11 at 11:51am
• ME:
  

  BN, I appreciate the conversation and/or debate instead of shouting at one another, as in some instances. I will admit that the links I provided were not targeted in any way. I'll take your word for it that there was duplication or that some may have been off topic. I simply went to one source, a Twitter account, and copied the first page of story headlines and their links. That seems to be all this source does is report these stories. What I've learned since following them (post-Sandy Hook) is that these stories are frequent and abundant. I acknowledge there are still regrettable firearms accidents, including with law enforcement officers. Truthfully, I don't know where to find these stories if they're not covered by mainstream media. But while the number of firearms in circulation has steadily increased for decades, violent crime and those accidents have decreased for decades. There may still be lots of both, but it's not the doom and gloom, everything is getting worse scenario being depicted by many outspoken gun control advocates. I've seen the crime stats and I'm taking the word of the NRA about firearms accidents. Many people want to discredit anything the NRA has to say, but they should really pay closer attention. I've seen validation of many of their points from other sources. I have not seen it on the firearms accidents claim, however, though I haven't seen any evidence of an increasing trend either.
  
  This year there are at least 4 states considering legislation that DOES include CONFISCATION of certain firearms. And confiscation DID happen in post-Katrina New Orleans for a few days before a (federal?) court stopped them from continuing. While some firearms owners received their property back, some did not, including some who witnessed their firearms begin destroyed immediately after confiscation.
  
  The wording of the ban on federal studies are specific to the CDC linking gun violence and gun control. I can't recall it specifically but I have read it. While I'll grant that the NRA, who lobbied for the ban, or the prevention of federal funding for it, may have had many motives, it by no means outlaws studies on gun violence or gun control outside these parameters. These studies do take place often by universities, advocate groups and independent statisticians. Both sides refer to them frequently. The issues are being studied, just not by the CDC. There have been attempts by gun control advocates to link anyone's desire to own a firearm as a fundamental mental health issue. For this reason alone it's fair to be suspicious of the CDC being funded to justify the connection with a predisposition. (The latest example is the Florida state Senator who, last week (?), proposed mandatory "anger management" training for anyone purchasing any firearm or ammunition.)
  
  I have spent an enormous amount of time on these issues since Sandy Hook. I have also never been outspoken about political issues before that tragic event. I sort of agree with you about the sides' use of data. Where I disagree is that I have found, and posted about previously, though I don't recall if that was in a conversation of which you were a participant, that the gun rights people are much more willing to drill into the details of the existing data. Gun control advocates' use of statistics tends to focus at the macro level and stop as soon as they find a convenient number for their predetermined purposes. Gun rights people will dive deeper and find an entirely different outcome that is strongly supported in the data. Raw data doesn't lie. Except that it does when it's manipulated at the point of data entry, as goes on in the UK. Analysis does lie. Not all of it, but some of it. And especially when that analysis is approached with a predisposition - 'let's prove that gun control legislation works', which is what the federal ban was intended to prevent. I'll admit I'm much less likely to consider a study credible when sponsored by the Brady or Mayors Against Gun Violence groups (predisposed positions) unless they're open enough to identify who conducted the survey (are they objective or biased?) and the survey design and questions. I know from personal and professional experience that a huge percentage of surveys are badly designed. The NRA did disclose their surveyor and the survey itself, along with its results, when debunking the gun control advocates' claims about NRA member support for gun control legislation and in opposition to the NRA's positions.
  
  The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is "the people" and not a reference to a standing force. While formal military service for a greater percentage of Americans is advantageous for many reasons, it's not essential for the militia purposes of the 2nd Amendment. There's been a quote circulating since the current gun control debate has been raging.
  
  "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.
  
  I'm not confident this is a valid quote. I don't take these things at face value and do attempt to validate or debunk many of them. I've seen no evidence that this one is valid or invalid, just opinion. Regardless of the validity of this 'quote', this is the "militia" intended by the 2nd Amendment and that was so crucial to our historic revolution and the birth of our nation. Aside from that, the 2nd Amendment is also about personal protection, as upheld by the Supreme Court. I do encourage private citizens who own firearms to seek training, but it need not be of a military nature.

  March 11 at 12:55pm

===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs
Illinois Firearms Blogs