15 year old boy defends himself and sister with AR-15

[DeusTrismegistus]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/15-Year-Old-Boy-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars

I just wanted to put this out there for discussion. There are a couple more links to stories of people using guns to defend themselves in the article as well.

[Steve James]

Hmm, why don't you start the discussion? I mean, if I posted a link to a story about someone using an AR-15 to commit homicide or suicide or who accidentally shot someone, a reader might think I was against AR-15s. But, that would be a little like being against an 1873 Colt in 1875 (Pardon the gun joke).

[gzregorz]

A 15 year old can't vote, can't drink, can't drive, can't join the military but can have access to an AR15. What a country !

[Dmitri]

A 15 year old can't vote, can't drink, can't drive, can't join the military but can have access to an AR15. What a country !

On the other side of that very coin -- an 18 year old can drive, vote, join military, be a pornstar, have access to AR-15, etc. ...but he or she can't legally buy or consume alcohol.

Just a year ago they FINALLY let people sell/buy alcohol on Sundays, around here.

Talk about ridiculous laws.

[Interloper]

When I was 18, it was legal to buy alcohol. We didn't think anything of it. Then they changed the law (I was 21 when they did so that didn't affect me), and people were outraged. It wasn't long after Vietnam and a lot of teenage people were pretty pissed that they could have been expected to go to war but not have a freakin' beer.

We still have "blue laws" here in Mass. that prohibit selling alcohol (except for restaurants, bars, pubs...) on Sundays and certain federal holidays! Of course, Mass. is where the Puritans were that came up with those laws.

[yeniseri]

I used to go to Wisconsin to get a few in that era!

[Steve James]

Well, at the time, we were saying that it was ridiculous that a guy could be conscripted and sent to kill people at 18, but couldn't vote. The beer thing didn't bother me at all. It was never difficult to get alcohol. It was a lot harder to get a gun; but, if one could get the .22 ammo, making a zip gun wasn't hard. Hmm, this reminds me of that suppressed pistol that the SOE of WW2 used. I can't remember the name. Maybe it's googleable.

Here ya go, a Welrod


Hey, it did the job. Our efforts were more like this

Still, it ain't the weapon; it's knowing when to use what it. Afa the 15 year-old who defended himself, it was the right time. If the weapon was in the house, and the kid didn't know how to use it, that would have been a shame. But, it doesn't matter what specific weapon it was. Though, ARs are popular and widespread precisely because they're easy to handle.

[chud]

This just happened not far from my home.

http://www.ksat.com/news/Stone-Oak-SUV-owner-shoots-2-burglary-suspects-kills-1/-/478452/18134362/-/a6ov25/-/index.html

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Shooting-in-Stone-Oak-adds-to-dialogue-on-guns-4195158.php

I would like to personally shake this young man's hand, he did the right thing in defending himself and his property (and the rest of our community).

[Steve James]

Hey, you're never to young to start.

NRA launches Practice Range gun app for children aged four and over

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/nra-l ... z2I44LtSXT

It is front page news in the NYC area http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1240207

I wonder how this fits in with the anti-violent video game stance.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Hmm, why don't you start the discussion? I mean, if I posted a link to a story about someone using an AR-15 to commit homicide or suicide or who accidentally shot someone, a reader might think I was against AR-15s. But, that would be a little like being against an 1873 Colt in 1875 (Pardon the gun joke).

I really couldn't think of anything to say when I posted this, and sometimes it is fun just to see where the discussion goes.

Anyway I can't see how a game where you shoot targets is all that violent. There have been gun simulation games in arcades and at home for decades. I mean is something wrong with duck hunt now?

I don't know if everyone read the article but this boy's father is a LEO. Something else to think about. If the gun was kept in a locked safe or had a gun lock on it then these two kids might be dead right now.

[Steve James]

I mean is something wrong with duck hunt now?

Iinm, the complaints about the "game" were that it used coffins and was directed at kids of 4 and above. Of course, people did note that for .99 cents, the kids could upgrade their weapons and get to use ARs and larger. Naw, there's nothing wrong with shooting games, and I don't think they turn people into killers. I don't complain about games at all. The NRA does. I'm not saying that there aren't more violent games, either. If I were a jerk, I'd use the same argument that people use for other things: i.e., that, although the game's not violent, it's a gateway to more violent games.

If the gun was kept in a locked safe or had a gun lock on it then these two kids might be dead right now.

Right, and how do you know whether the gun had been locked up or whether the burglar was going to kill the kids? Anyway, what's amazing to me is that the above is totally contrary to NRA safety rules. But, fwiw, the only logical conclusion I can get from the comment is that you believe that no child should be left alone without easy access to a loaded weapon. There was a big todo here about a paper that looked at public records and published the names of all the registered gun owners. People wanted to sue the paper. I understand why; but, I would like to know the people in my neighborhood who kept guns laying around so that I would make absolutely sure that my kids --and probably myself-- would never be in that home.

Fwiw http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

[DeusTrismegistus]

I mean is something wrong with duck hunt now?

Iinm, the complaints about the "game" were that it used coffins and was directed at kids of 4 and above. Of course, people did note that for .99 cents, the kids could upgrade their weapons and get to use ARs and larger. Naw, there's nothing wrong with shooting games, and I don't think they turn people into killers. I don't complain about games at all. The NRA does. I'm not saying that there aren't more violent games, either. If I were a jerk, I'd use the same argument that people use for other things: i.e., that, although the game's not violent, it's a gateway to more violent games.

If the gun was kept in a locked safe or had a gun lock on it then these two kids might be dead right now.

Right, and how do you know whether the gun had been locked up or whether the burglar was going to kill the kids? Anyway, what's amazing to me is that the above is totally contrary to NRA safety rules. But, fwiw, the only logical conclusion I can get from the comment is that you believe that no child should be left alone without easy access to a loaded weapon. There was a big todo here about a paper that looked at public records and published the names of all the registered gun owners. People wanted to sue the paper. I understand why; but, I would like to know the people in my neighborhood who kept guns laying around so that I would make absolutely sure that my kids --and probably myself-- would never be in that home.

Fwiw http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

First I did make a logical leap assuming the gun was not locked up. It is possible it was not. It also would not have to be loaded. If there were magazines loaded it could be ready to go in a couple seconds. I don't think that children should be left alone with armed guns. I think that a 15 year old who has significant training with firearms should be perfectly safe left at home with an armed gun. I come from a family where most people learn to shoot at a young age and learn how to safely handle a gun. I have a 10 year old cousin who goes hunting with my uncle.

As to the paper thing iirc there has already been one house broken into and the suspects used the information in the paper to target the house and tried to steal the guns, which were locked in a safe. The paper painted targets on peoples' backs and I hope they are sued.

[Steve James]

First I did make a logical leap assuming the gun was not locked up. It is possible it was not.

Dude, you said:

If the gun was kept in a locked safe or had a gun lock on it then these two kids might be dead right now.

Well, yeah, "If"..then "they might," so you didn't make a logical leap at all. Since, they "are not dead." But, I do believe that I pointed that out already.

Anyway, the NRA has always had safety regulations. They're there for a reason, and that's because there are dummies who leave weapons around or forget they're loaded.

Afa the houses that were identified being burglarized. I don't buy that it's because burglars search for guns. I think burglars search for valuables. Period. But, when they finally catch the burglars, I'd like to hear them say that they targeted legitimate gun owners. Well, if they did, that sort of shoots the hell out of the argument that more people should own guns. That'll just attract robbers. Anyway, what's the point of public records if they're not public? Isn't that better than just the gov't having access? Or, should guns be registered at all? Should people need permits? Should only gov't know or should no one know? Or, should anyone know? What would be the result of that?

[gzregorz]

In the Navy we were trained with handguns. We were told that these were better for close quarters combat. Good for the kid, but he could have had the rifle taken away and used against him. I wonder if the nra would care about him then.

[Steve James]

http://global.christianpost.com/news/jo ... eos-88506/