oroinvictus
dangert billy
they say the biggest deterrent to someone invading your home is the sound of a shotgun being cocked...
Maybe in movies and hypothetical studies they say that...
they say the biggest deterrent to someone invading your home is the sound of a shotgun being cocked...
Maybe in movies and hypothetical studies they say that...
You're right, someone breaking into a house hears a shotgun being readied and they just stick around.
Wow...
Have you stood a violent intruder down in your home by racking a pump at them before? If anyone here has a story about facing down an intruder in their home and forcing them to leave only by racking the action of a firearm, I'd love to hear it. A personal story, not a 'study' or 'research'. Most firearm actions being readied have a very similar sound, especially from a distance, and I'm pretty sure "Stop, or I'll shoot" is a more realistic, effective and less 'hollywood' method of force application.
i assume you wont be pedantic enough to insist that it literally be the sound of a shotgun being racked... but would settle for anything in which it was made clear to an intruder that an armed homeowner was prepared to defend themselves...
And who would even challenge the fact that guns dissuade intruders? I hoe you were just playing "devil's advocate", and not in any way serious.
I never challenged the point that guns don't dissuade intruders. I was trying to make a point on the common belief that racking the pump of a shotgun is enough to scare off an intruder (as I quoted that near-exact statement from someone in the thread), in that it's not exactly realistic.
Have you stood a violent intruder down in your home by racking a pump at them before? If anyone here has a story about facing down an intruder in their home and forcing them to leave only by racking the action of a firearm, I'd love to hear it. A personal story, not a 'study' or 'research'. Most firearm actions being readied have a very similar sound, especially from a distance, and I'm pretty sure "Stop, or I'll shoot" is a more realistic, effective and less 'hollywood' method of force application.
is it really?? i don't think it is, and i don't think you have any basis at all for making such a claim. There is functionally zero difference between verbalizing that you have a gun vs. cycling the action of the gun to make the necessary impression. If anything, logic dictates that the latter would indeed be the more effective approach... an unsubstantiated claim vs. proof; proof wins every time.
And you live in a very low (comperative to many many other states) crime state.... i wonder why that is? oh yeah... Open and Concealed carry allowed, Bº)
also love that you mock factual evidence as if it's meaningless. I'll be sure to have that same arrogant and ignorant approach to any "studies" or "research" you can find to support something you talk about, because ignoring truths to help your personal opinion makes total sense.
Please, show me some empirical evidence to support your own opinion before calling me out. Where are these 'truths' you're talking about?
Are you serious right now?
The fact you are even asking for that confirms what I just said. Do I really need to find empirical evidence to show that people don't want to get shot? Or that they know when they hear a gun being cocked that what comes next usually isn't unicorns and balloons if they are breaking in somewhere? Better yet, do your own study. Find a bunch of criminals, ask them if they would need someone to tell them they have a gun after hearing it being cocked, see what they would say. In case you haven't noticed, all of my opinions in this thread have been backed up by facts. Nobody seems to want to address those though, as I already pointed out. Un-fucking-believable.
Are you serious right now?
The fact you are even asking for that confirms what I just said. I never said any time an intruder is encountered, simply cock your gun, that'll do it. But I know you wouldn't have to say something after that more often than not. Do I really need to find empirical evidence to show that people don't want to get shot? Or that they know when they hear a gun being cocked that what comes next usually isn't unicorns and balloons if they are breaking in somewhere? Better yet, do your own study. Find a bunch of criminals, ask them if they would need someone to tell them they have a gun after hearing it being cocked, see what they would say. In case you haven't noticed, all of my opinions in this thread have been backed up by facts. Nobody seems to want to address those though, as I already pointed out. In fact, look up a few posts of mine from earlier in this thread, where I explained that studies have shown over 1/3 of criminals asked have said they abandoned the situation instead of completed their crime because they knew or believed their victim had a gun. I'm pretty damn sure more than one of those were because they heard the gun and that's all it took. There's even a video I posted from a 20/20 special that has the same thing being talked about. The fact that you are even still arguing this is rather obnoxious, especially since I already gave evidence to support my opinion earlier in the thread regarding this. What a surprise you ignored that. Un-fucking-believable.
Once again, common sense, try it on for size, you might like it.
As I said there, I've already shown evidence to support my opinion. Where's yours?
James Murphy said:There is functionally zero difference between verbalizing that you have a gun vs. cycling the action of the gun to make the necessary impression. If anything, logic dictates that the latter would indeed be the more effective approach... an unsubstantiated claim vs. proof; proof wins every time.
If a thug who's twice your size is charging you with a knife or, worse, a firearm in your home, do you think he'll care much about what sound your gun makes at that point?
Mike, I think you might be getting trolled.
Can we get back to talking about how taking guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens seemingly in no way reduces the likelyhood of criminals using them?
Pro-gun people don't want to keep their gun(s) so they can be vigilantes, or heroes, or any of that nonsense. They want them because they know criminals have guns. Because they know the police are not the first line of defense when you need to protect you or your loved one's life or your property. Because shit can hit the fan any time to any one and they'd rather be prepared than be helpless. Because some of them want to hunt or participate in competitive shooting or just be a damn collector. It's actually not important why they want to keep them. What's important is that they explicitly have the right to have them as stated in the BoR. Period. Trump card. There should be no argument against that.