The mass shooting today.

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

I am attaching a Remington 870 parts explosion in Hope's of explaining the storage of shells in the tubular magazine,  See picture.

I will work on the explanation and post shortly.

If the photo depicts how your gun is stored I'm sure it's quite safe. 

RFA still had the weapon ready to fire in half a second.

I'm unclear why a shotgun would be a first choice for one to use for self-defense? Wouldn't a handgun tend to work better? I've used shotguns for skeet, and the bulky length, the kick, and the less targeted scattershot don't seem optimal to deal with an intruder if they are inside (or near) your suburban house.

sprout said:

I've used shotguns for skeet, and the bulky length, the kick, and the less targeted scattershot don't seem optimal to deal with an intruder if they are inside (or near) your suburban house.

It may be a more effective club, though, when the intruder is “in your face making immediate demands and threats.”

Wouldn’t have worked as well as my teeth in my case 

ridski said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

I am attaching a Remington 870 parts explosion in Hope's of explaining the storage of shells in the tubular magazine,  See picture.

I will work on the explanation and post shortly.

If the photo depicts how your gun is stored I'm sure it's quite safe. 

RFA still had the weapon ready to fire in half a second.

I'm still trying to figure out what circumstances would allow time to hide in a closet and grab and arm a shotgun but not enough time to dial 911

ml1 said:

I'm still trying to figure out what circumstances would allow time to hide in a closet and grab and arm a shotgun but not enough time to dial 911

The reality is…. He’s full of it.

Jaytee said:

ml1 said:

I'm still trying to figure out what circumstances would allow time to hide in a closet and grab and arm a shotgun but not enough time to dial 911

The reality is…. He’s full of it.

Now, now, RFA has given us no reason to doubt the experience he shared with us, so there's no reason to accuse him of lying. 

ETA: He's actually been pretty open in the past on this board about his ownership of a shotgun and some air rifles, and that they are locked in a closet.

If we accept that people should have loaded or near-loaded weapons in their homes for self-defense, then we are implicitly accepting shootings when a person knocks on the wrong door or turns up the wrong driveway or a person in the house has some sort of mental breakdown or somebody just makes a mistake.  Is this actually the best we can do?

ridski said:

Jaytee said:

ml1 said:

I'm still trying to figure out what circumstances would allow time to hide in a closet and grab and arm a shotgun but not enough time to dial 911

The reality is…. He’s full of it.

Now, now, RFA has given us no reason to doubt the experience he shared with us, so there's no reason to accuse him of lying. 

ETA: He's actually been pretty open in the past on this board about his ownership of a shotgun and some air rifles, and that they are locked in a closet.

I don't disbelieve. I just don't buy the notion that it would take me longer to dial 911 than it took him to go and grab a gun. 

tjohn said:

If we accept that people should have loaded or near-loaded weapons in their homes for self-defense, then we are implicitly accepting shootings when a person knocks on the wrong door or turns up the wrong driveway or a person in the house has some sort of mental breakdown or somebody just makes a mistake.  Is this actually the best we can do?

apparently 

Do I think keeping a shotgun in my front closet is a good idea? Not particularly. But if we're going to have any hope at rolling back the extremism that's currently pushing gun culture into ever deadlier and absurd territory, then it can't just be people who don't have guns who agree that things have gone too far, it also needs to include gun owners.

RFA never actually answered if he thinks behavior like that in Florida should be criminally prosecutable, just that he agreed that it was irresponsible and that he had a problem with it. I hope he's willing to go that next step, and say that not only is such behavior problematic, but that it should be criminal, and is able to see that laws like these stand-your-ground laws risk painting all gun owners as violent extremists. Drawing a bright line between "I keep my gun accessible but locked up and unloaded" and "I should have a legal right to be armed anywhere and the law should defend me if I shoot someone just because I'm scared or angry" is something I think is in the interests not just of non-gun owners, but of gun owners who see themselves as reasonable and responsible as well.

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

All great points.  Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts.  What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.  I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet.  And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber.  Upon, seeing the shotgun,  and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled.  Police were called and invader arrested.

All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.

I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.

I don't recall hearing about this.  In the absence of an actual report on this, who believes this story to be true?

sprout said:

I'm unclear why a shotgun would be a first choice for one to use for self-defense? Wouldn't a handgun tend to work better? I've used shotguns for skeet, and the bulky length, the kick, and the less targeted scattershot don't seem optimal to deal with an intruder if they are inside (or near) your suburban house.

Actually, a shotgun is likely the better option for true home defense.  There's the bird shot/buck shot approach which is actually more likely to stop an intruder than a handgun (which is likely to lead to a lot of missed shots).

Just imagine firing a shotgun in your living room at an intruder… hopefully your home insurance covers the cost of the windows, front door, walls and door bell… not to mention the window treatments… blinds are us is not a cheap store.

Steve said:

I don't recall hearing about this. In the absence of an actual report on this, who believes this story to be true?

I do. There’s a lot that I don’t hear or read about, and what does believing this cost me?

Steve said:

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

All great points.  Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts.  What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.  I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet.  And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber.  Upon, seeing the shotgun,  and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled.  Police were called and invader arrested.

All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.

I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.

I don't recall hearing about this.  In the absence of an actual report on this, who believes this story to be true?

Why should you doubt his account?

Steve said:

I don't recall hearing about this.  In the absence of an actual report on this, who believes this story to be true?

I didn't give a thought as to whether it was true or not. It didn't matter.

At close range, the spread of a shotgun is pretty tight - maybe the size of a basketball at 30 feet for birdshot.  If you want to disable an intruder but not kill the person, birdshot is a good option.  Just ask Dick Cheney's hunting partner.

nohero said:

Steve said:

I don't recall hearing about this.  In the absence of an actual report on this, who believes this story to be true?

I didn't give a thought as to whether it was true or not. It didn't matter.

same here. It's something that could have plausibly happened, and that's what's relevant to the larger discussion.

tjohn said:

At close range, the spread of a shotgun is pretty tight - maybe the size of a basketball at 30 feet for birdshot.  If you want to disable an intruder but not kill the person, birdshot is a good option.  Just ask Dick Cheney's hunting partner.

Dick Cheney’s explanation for the shooting was “I tawt I taw a demotwat”

PVW said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/24/instacart-delivery-driver-shooting-florida/

Is there any good faith reading of the second amendment that equates a right to bear arms with a right to shoot without consequences? Behavior like this should be criminal and should be prosecuted. The right to bear arms ought to imply a strong obligation to bear them responsibly.

Agreed as to being responsible with firearms. Tough part is that different places, different decades and different zeitgeist results in different conclusions as to what is the definition of responsible.

As a general rule, I do NOT endorse shooting at people to resolve disagreements.  Further, as a general rule, I do NOT endorse shooting at people retreating.  Shooter (in the insta-cart delivery shooting)  claims that he wad merely shooting at the tires.  Certain bit of non-sequitur here, deflating the tire would likely delay insta-cart driver from departing.

PS I have been on the road for a couple of days. Resulting in my delayed response.  Thanks for your patience.

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.

Before accusing others of sensationalism, one might bear in mind the role of insistent beliefs in confirmation bias.

2A is a fundamental right under our Constitution.  Are there any fundamental rights that you are insistent upon?

If so why?

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

Straw-man argument on your part here. Your first sentence is a complete fabrication (false) of my POV.  We have not discussed the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting.  I would suggest that we save the door-bell-ringing>>> shooting.for another time (more issues in that one).  The present incident (namely, the insta-cart-no-injury shooting) is a better example of media sensatalionism.

Florida has different laws which bring forth different behaviors and expectations.  If FLA voters and legislators are horrified regarding this incident  then they should change the FLA laws and regulations immediately.

Florida legislators, and many Americans, aren't horrified by this, and that's the problem.

The man who shot at the Instacart driver behaved recklessly and irresponsibly. Florida law probably means he'll face no legal liability, and my entire argument is that this is wrong -- that American gun culture has increasingly glorified deadly and irresponsible usage of deadly weapons, and that American gun laws (especially in the states, but thanks to SCOTUS also increasingly nationally) is following this culture into an indefensible and irresponsible position.

You responded with a personal story, and I asked if you saw that as different or equivalent to the story in Florida (or by, allusion, to the one in KC or upstate NY). If you were to say yes, then that'd mean we found some area of agreement here -- we could agree that running out your front door with a loaded gun is irresponsible. If you don't see a difference, then I'm afraid you're part of the problem.

in my personal situation, the perp entered the dwelling without permission or invitation.  While, in the FLA insta-cart shooting, my understanding is that the Iinsta-xart driver never enteted the property owner's dwelling.  Additionally, in my instance,no shots fired.  As a result, from my perspective to very different breeds of cat. 

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

All great points.  Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts.  What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.  I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet.  And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber.  Upon, seeing the shotgun,  and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled.  Police were called and invader arrested.

All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.

I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.

Scouts training was essentially basic firearms training. As far as I remember, Scouts training did not address home defense weapons.

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

Stored in accord with NJ law.  Heightened firearm storage requirements were introduced in NJ bill A2215.   As far as I can tell, the bill was introduced in February 2022 and then referred to NJ Judiciary committee.  IOW, still in committee for more than one year. See:  https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A2215

That’s nice. As you know, not everything that’s idiotic is illegal.

And when you asked, “Are you happy for me and my family that the home invasion was defeated without any bloodshed or violence” through use of your loaded and unsecured gun, can we assume “family” didn’t include any minor children at the time?

Conversely, not everything legal is idiotic.  For the most part, our laws and regulations reflect the will of the people of NJ (a very anti-gun state).  If the enhanced firearm storage bill is still in-process (and NOT enacted) after more than a year then my conclusion is that there is NOT overwhelming support for this enhanced firearm storage measure.

joanne said:

RealityForAll said:

When a firearm is used to prevent a crime, rarely does that fact get reported.  Hence, there is a reporting bias whereby the burdens/injuries/deaths arising from firearms are reported in detail.  While crimes prevented/mitigated due to the introduction of firearms are rarely reported.  IOW, analysis of firearm benefit versus burden is impossible to accurately assess under the existing laws, and regulations.

PS How would you call the MPD while a home invasion is going on? And, the invader(s) are in your face making immediate demands and threats.

When I awoke to find a strange man in my bed trying to rape me, I screamed loudly, and my neighbours called 000 - the police, who arrived within 10 mins. Within this timeframe, I had used the self-defence strategies I’d learnt to not only maim and mark him, but throw him off the bed, chase him out of the house and partway through the garden (then remembered I was naked). The police caught three suspects within a few hours and identified the right man because of the bite marks.

I’d also grabbed a very sharp, large chef’s knife for protection as I ran through the kitchen to the front door. 

I’ve had my right foot crushed by a car driving forward over it. Then the driver panicked and then reversed back over it as I was trying to move it out of the way. I could smell the burning flesh as his tyre climbed the arch of my foot. The pain of crushed metatarsals was so intense I’d never have thought of going for a weapon; it was all I could do to breathe and remember my name. 

I also remember learning an honour code that shooting people in the back is dishonourable, the mark of a coward. 

Sorry to hear that you were confronted in your own home.  But, happy to hear that it concluded as best as could be expected.  The biting-identification was brilliant.  Good work!!!

sprout said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

I've shot guns before. Not especially powerful guns. Mostly when I was younger, in the context of Boy Scouts. Once or twice when I was younger out at a high school friend's farm (I grew up in the midwest). One thing that was always stressed in Scouts when handling firearms was responsibility and safety -- keep the safety on until you're ready to shoot, never point the gun at someone, always treat the gun as if it's loaded even if you think it's not.

I personally have no use for a gun. I don't hunt. I live in suburban NJ. I don't lead a lifestyle where firearms really make sense or are needed or are part of any of my hobbies. But I understand some people do. And we do have a place for firearms explicitly called out in our constitution. But I strongly believe that rights also come with responsibilities, and modern gun culture just seems ever more extreme and irresponsible. It's not just the mass shootings and the suicides, it's the underlying deference to and excusing of irresponsible gun usage and what I think can fairly be called second amendment idolatry. I just can't get into the mindset of someone who sees someone their impulse is to go out gun loaded and safety off. What is wrong with people that this is seen as a normal, defensible thing to do?

All great points.  Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts.  What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.  I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet.  And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber.  Upon, seeing the shotgun,  and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled.  Police were called and invader arrested.

All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.

Glad that worked out well for you. Did they hear anyone, or know anyone was at home before you brandished the shotgun? 

I grew up in the Bronx in the 1970's. Our first floor apartment was burglarized about 8 times in the decade I lived there - and they seemed to try to do the burglaries when no one was home. 

Except the burglars didn't get it right once. We weren't home, but the landlady who lived upstairs was, and heard them break our window in the back. She yelled "Hey!" at them. The three would-be-burglars fled just from that.

Fellow walked right in (storm door was closed and unlocked) but front door was open. I was trying to get sunlight in.  When this fellow came in the door without invitation or acknowledgement.  I was at my desk facing the door.  I saw/heard the invader after he was three or four steps in the house.  I shouted at him to leave.  He told me that he wanted money and responded to my demand for him to leave with "go f!#$ yourself."

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

All great points.  Similarly, I received firearms training in Scouts.  What made me so insistent on gun rights was a home invasion that happened in our fair community.  I brandished my Remington 870 shotgun from the front closet.  And, then in a split second, I racked a shell into the chamber.  Upon, seeing the shotgun,  and hearing the distinctive sound of a 12 gauge shell being racked, the invader fled.  Police were called and invader arrested.

All safe, no one hurt and problem resolved.

I doubt the Scouts taught you to keep a loaded firearm in the closet.

Scouts training was essentially basic firearms training. As far as I remember, Scouts training did not address home defense weapons.

Okay, so you didn't take Scout training, since safety is part of the training.

RealityForAll said:

Conversely, not everything legal is idiotic.  For the most part, our laws and regulations reflect the will of the people of NJ (a very anti-gun state).  If the enhanced firearm storage bill is still in-process (and NOT enacted) after more than a year then my conclusion is that there is NOT overwhelming support for this enhanced firearm storage measure.

It would be idiotic to rely on minimum standards, as part of a legal penalty, for a measure of what's actually safe.

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

I am attaching a Remington 870 parts explosion in Hope's of explaining the storage of shells in the tubular magazine,  See picture.

I will work on the explanation and post shortly.

Ah, the classic You don't know how guns work but I do therefore I'm right about gun policy argument.

I was attempting to share information.   My intention on information sharing is to understand in my shell storage.
 

Further, please understand that the term "loaded firearm" involves a spectrum of situations.  Such as: i.) shell in the firing chamber; ii.) shell(s) in detachable magazine NOT inserted in firearm but stored adjacent to firearm; iii.) shell(s) in detachable magazine inserted in firearm;; iv.) shell(s) inserted in permanently attached magazine but NO shells in firing chamber (the situation with my Remington 870 shotgun in the home invasion).  The list above is not exhaustive but provided merely for some examples.  I could go on with more examples but it gets tedious.