Gun sales spike as Ferguson area braces for grand jury decision

[phtlc]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t4


Prudence or paranoia?

[joan1984]

Prudence, of course. Oddly the reaction is not as much to Michael Browns neighbors as it is a reaction to President Obama inserting himself again on the side of criminal behavior and against actions of a working Police officer, without knowing or worse, knowing facts that contradict the President's response.

The reaction of the President brought in Eric Holder, and a flight of FBI officers, and who knows who else, none of whom have in mind the protection of homeowners in nearby areas. If you qualify, which seems strange to say, but if you are a citizen, you probably qualify to own and bear arms, and should take advantage of the present time while it is still possible to see the U.S. Constitution and rule of law apply.

Having a firearm and not needing one, is far preferable to needing a firearm and not having it. Ammo is continuing to be in short supply, due to Government Purchases of vast quantities of ammunition, for as yet unexplained reasons having nothing to do with foreign enemies or operations... you decide what makes more sense...

If you like your Constitution, and Rights, you can keep your Constitution and Rights....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t4


Prudence or paranoia?

[Katiebee]

Mostly paranoia and unreasoned fear.

As far as ammunition purchases, it takes an expenditure of at least 50 rounds a week to maintain proficiency. To have weapons proficiency at a high level, it requires 150 to 200 rounds a week.

Considering that most police encounters require between 50 to 200 rounds to bring down a suspect in a gun battle, I prefer that the agencies expend that ammunition up front in practice.

Bad marksmanship results in collateral damage.

[watcher1]

Mostly paranoia and unreasoned fear.

As far as ammunition purchases, it takes an expenditure of at least 50 rounds a week to maintain proficiency. To have weapons proficiency at a high level, it requires 150 to 200 rounds a week.

Considering that most police encounters require between 50 to 200 rounds to bring down a suspect in a gun battle, I prefer that the agencies expend that ammunition up front in practice.

Bad marksmanship results in collateral damage.

And just think the police have gone to firing ranges to perfect their skills and still miss most of the time. 

[Lois]

Are the protesters arming themselves? 

[phtlc]

And just think the police have gone to firing ranges to perfect their skills and still miss most of the time. 

Many departments do not "perfect" their skills, but merely require their officers to meet their minimum periodic (monthly, quarterly..etc) requalification.

[Katiebee]

In my case, i pity the fool who invades my  demesne. If all else fails, I'll bite their throat out.

[phtlc]

In my case, i pity the fool who invades my  demesne. If all else fails, I'll bite their throat out.

If I ever piss you off (god forbid), please promise you will give me a running head start before you react.

[Athos_131]

In my case, i pity the fool who invades my  demesne. If all else fails, I'll bite their throat out.

That's not going to be wise when the zombies outbreak.

[Katiebee]

Well for the zombies I use a different strategy.

And are we talking shambling zombies or fast running zombies?

[MissBarbara]

Prudence, of course. Oddly the reaction is not as much to Michael Browns neighbors as it is a reaction to President Obama inserting himself again on the side of criminal behavior and against actions of a working Police officer, without knowing or worse, knowing facts that contradict the President's response.

The reaction of the President brought in Eric Holder, and a flight of FBI officers, and who knows who else, none of whom have in mind the protection of homeowners in nearby areas. If you qualify, which seems strange to say, but if you are a citizen, you probably qualify to own and bear arms, and should take advantage of the present time while it is still possible to see the U.S. Constitution and rule of law apply.

Having a firearm and not needing one, is far preferable to needing a firearm and not having it. Ammo is continuing to be in short supply, due to Government Purchases of vast quantities of ammunition, for as yet unexplained reasons having nothing to do with foreign enemies or operations... you decide what makes more sense...

If you like your Constitution, and Rights, you can keep your Constitution and Rights....

Paranoia, of course. With a big dollop of racism added on top.

Obama butthurt notwithstanding, what's implied, but not stated, by those cited in the CNN piece is that feel they need to protect themselves from the mobs of rampaging black people that will surely arise once the decision is announced.

[joan1984]

  And why is it, that having been there, seen that, the tax payers of Ferguson would not have the concern that unlawful demonstrators will set fire to, and loot businesses on any Friday night, just looking at the history they have seen with their own eyes, let along when worked up to a frenzy by media coverage and activist agitators in their own ranks.

  Should people wait until they are personally confronted to prepare for a mob response, regardless of the law, regardless of process? Those who do that are called victims. Armed merchants who legally defend their businesses against rioting hooliganism are better positioned to have a business in the future, rather than lose it right there and then.

  We all hope no protesters require the ultimate defense of property owners, and that the protesters of Ferguson, MO will respect the life and property of their neighbors. HOPE, there is that word again. It is no longer necessary to hope, when there are legal steps to be taken to insure yourself, when commercial Insurance Companies will not.

[MissBarbara]

Should people wait until they are personally confronted to prepare for a mob response, regardless of the law, regardless of process? Those who do that are called victims. Armed merchants who legally defend their businesses against rioting hooliganism are better positioned to have a business in the future, rather than lose it right there and then.

And if people DIE as a result, well, those who pulled the trigger are simply exercising their Constitutional rights, so a couple of dozen deaths are soooo worth it.

[joan1984]

Only the felon who assaulted the cop has died, from a good guy with a gun, so far. Hope to keep it that way. Anyone else who was injured while assaulting officers during their illegal demonstrations (no permits, no port-a-johns, no problem) in Ferguson, MO, brought trouble upon themselves.

Merchants there, and their insurance which they cannot renew at present, suffered financial losses, and citizens there in general suffered due to the lawless behavior of demonstrators and loss of commercial services from the merchants who were burned out and looted.

Police officers were attacked with projectiles, gunfire in the crowd, and various other lawless acts to date, at terrific cost to taxpayers of MO, not from law abiding gun owners, but from whipped up trouble makers, and outside agitators, union thugs imported to bring trouble to that community.

The usual suspects, bringing grief and loss, and commercial chaos to a neighborhood near you, and paying not a dime for the process in return, while bullhorns blare illegitimate b.s. in their wakes, to cheers from the White House and Justice Department. Let freedom ring.

Should people wait until they are personally confronted to prepare for a mob response, regardless of the law, regardless of process? Those who do that are called victims. Armed merchants who legally defend their businesses against rioting hooliganism are better positioned to have a business in the future, rather than lose it right there and then.

And if people DIE as a result, well, those who pulled the trigger are simply exercising their Constitutional rights, so a couple of dozen deaths are soooo worth it.

[MissBarbara]

Only the felon who assaulted the cop has died, from a good guy with a gun, so far. Hope to keep it that way. Anyone else who was injured while assaulting officers during their illegal demonstrations (no permits, no port-a-johns, no problem) in Ferguson, MO, brought trouble upon themselves.

Merchants there, and their insurance which they cannot renew at present, suffered financial losses, and citizens there in general suffered due to the lawless behavior of demonstrators and loss of commercial services from the merchants who were burned out and looted.

Police officers were attacked with projectiles, gunfire in the crowd, and various other lawless acts to date, at terrific cost to taxpayers of MO, not from law abiding gun owners, but from whipped up trouble makers, and outside agitators, union thugs imported to bring trouble to that community.

The usual suspects, bringing grief and loss, and commercial chaos to a neighborhood near you, and paying not a dime for the process in return, while bullhorns blare illegitimate b.s. in their wakes, to cheers from the White House and Justice Department. Let freedom ring.

All of this may or may not be true.

But the article under discussion in this thread -- and, most notably, the views of the people cited in the article -- is not about what happened in Ferguson, but what will happen in Ferguson if there is a negative reaction to a grand jury verdict.

It is, in essence, a call for store-owners and retail business owners to arm themselves for the coming onslaught (and, tacitly implied, the coming Black onslaught).

If they're all locked and loaded, deaths will ensue, that's a certainty. Even "responsible gun owners," who are armed, ready, and prepared to fire, will end up killing people. That, again, is a certainty.

So I ask, again, if those who pull the trigger are simply exercising their Constitutional rights, are the deaths that ensue acceptable? Are they worth it?

[Katiebee]

I do not believe that Missouri has a Stand Your Ground law. Therefore, anyone shooting without verifiable fear for their life will face arrest and trial. Just because you are armed doesn't mean you are entitled to use it against someone.

[joan1984]

  Property owners who are legally defending themselves and their property from rioters would only be using a firearm on a trespasser, and so it is up to the individuals who wish to risk such a solution to their illegal behavior.

  Looting, rioting is not an activity any thinking person wants to perform and that leaves those who assume the risks, and reap the consequences. It is a lot of hassle to shoot someone, especially if they are left only wounded to sue you forever for support. Not something anyone should take lightly, especially rioters, looters, and generally agitators or those following such creeps.

  Hey, wont be any trouble, right, as Mr. Browns family is calling for calm, and we all know how much his 'friends' respect them and all, right? Will the the circus the family has desired, from their first fund raising trip, to their UN Geneva trip... good for TV ratings, right?

[Katiebee]

Got news, using deadly force to defend property is not universally sanctioned and people who do that, on a place of business may face arrest and prosecution.

[MissBarbara]

  Property owners who are legally defending themselves and their property from rioters would only be using a firearm on a trespasser, and so it is up to the individuals who wish to risk such a solution to their illegal behavior.

  Looting, rioting is not an activity any thinking person wants to perform and that leaves those who assume the risks, and reap the consequences. It is a lot of hassle to shoot someone, especially if they are left only wounded to sue you forever for support. Not something anyone should take lightly, especially rioters, looters, and generally agitators or those following such creeps.

  Hey, wont be any trouble, right, as Mr. Browns family is calling for calm, and we all know how much his 'friends' respect them and all, right? Will the the circus the family has desired, from their first fund raising trip, to their UN Geneva trip... good for TV ratings, right?

You still haven't answered the question.

I will grant -- on a purely hypothetically basis -- that a store-owner whose establishment is invaded by rioters clearly bent on looting and destruction and who is in genuine and immediate fear for his life has the right to use his duly licensed and purchased handgun to save his life.

Even given that, the attending deaths are still objectionable.

More to the point, that scenario, albeit hypothetical, would be the exception. Locked and loaded proprietors -- encouraged as they are here to use firearms to defend themselves -- would do so, killing or wounding bystanders, those they incorrectly perceive as threatening their lives, those who are a threat to their property, but not their lives, etc.

Again (and for the last time), do you find those deaths acceptable?

[MissBarbara]

Got news, using deadly force to defend property is not universally sanctioned and people who do that, on a place of business may face arrest and prosecution.

That's correct.

But even more to the point, as I mentioned above, you're killing people to protect stuff.

Even if it's sanctioned, or legal, the imbalance is morally unacceptable.