Home invader was killed with his own assault rifle,

Shreveport police say a man being beaten with an assault rifle wrestled the weapon from his attacker and killed him.

Cpl. Bill Goodin, a police spokesman, says 23-year-old Martin Gobert shot 18-year-old Jeremy Bell about 10:45 a.m. Tuesday.

He says Bell allegedly hid behind another man who knocked on Gobert's door -- and then forced his way in and began beating Gobert in an apparent robbery attempt

Goodin says he expects police will turn their report over to the district attorney, who will decide whether to charge Gobert.


http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/12/home_invader_was_killed_with_h.html

Good guy wins, has to work at it, but wins.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Maybe no one won, but there IS a loser here. To see who it is, check a mirror.

Guns glorious guns.

Mainly I feel empowered because you always make me feel like I know what I am talking about and that I have facts on my side while you have nothing but rhetoric and hyperbole. Thanks for making my day.

See, no gun needed, so again, you are wrong.

This is always so much fun. You throw shit on the wall and I hose it off. You remind me of a monkey at the zoo and I am the zookeeper....

IIRC, the percentage of residential burglaries in the US that are "hot" (i.e. when some or all of the residents are home) is about 13%. By contrast, the percentage in the UK and the Netherlands is over 40%. It's practically an axiom among American criminologists that American burglars overwhelmingly tend to avoid occupied dwellings (and spend 75% or more of the time given to burglaries "casing the joint" to make sure nobody's home), and the most obvious explanation for this (for which there is strong supporting evidence) is that American burglars seek to avoid encountering a possibly armed resident, whereas British and Dutch burglars are not overly concerned about being confronted by--or confronting--the residents.

As a result, American "hot" burglaries, when they do happen, tend to be nastier, because quite often the intruder actively intends to confront the resident(s), and comes prepared for the event that the resident(s) may be armed; i.e. he brings his own gun.

So does availability of a firearm "embolden the crime"? Arguably, yes, but only insofar that the availability of a firearm to the resident initially deters it. British and Dutch burglars are quite prepared to commit a "hot" burglary without firearms because they aren't concerned about being shot at.

Empowerment to do what, exactly?

Saw where the question was leading and slunk away.

I don't feel that way when I have a firearm in my possession.

But thanks again for making yourself look ignorant.

home invaders with knives. Since there was no gun, how did it start?

What do you have against self-defense?

...and an epic fail for the robber.

Mr Gobert of that. Feel free to post back here with his response.

Sorry, I don't have a link.

Maybe he was just as much of an asshole as the guy who got killed?
It's hard to tell, cause there's no... ummm.... story here to refer to.

How would knowing about the victims personality help to determine anything?

Pull your pants up, your ignorance is showing.

Felon=bad.

You really need that explained?

Its the Necromonger way!

Most likely, it is a semi-automatic carbine of medium power. "Assault Rifles" are recognized by the military and gun writers as capable of FULL-AUTO fire; that is, rapid automatic fire with one pull and hold of the trigger. This type weapon, while legal to own, is highly restricted, and in any case, owned by perhaps fewer than two hundred thousand people.

I think MSM knows this, but are absolutely bent on fostering the lie that full-auto "machine guns" are used all over the place.

Basically, your definition is that a hand-held machine gun is an assault rifle. I had always figured it included semi-auto, civilian legal AR15s, M1As and AK variants.

Do you really think there are nearly 200,000 machine gun owners in this country?

General George S. Patton , SIR .

An 'assault rifle' is a weapon with select fire capabilities, and a cartridge of intermediate power, between a sub-machine gun, and a battle rifle.

Battle Rifles are full sized rifles, with full sized cartridges, like the NATO .308, .30-06, or russian 7.62x54R, etc.
Sub-machine guns are machine guns that fire pistol rounds, like the 9mm, .45, etc. The Thompson or 'Tommy gun' is an example of this, chambered in .45.

An assault rifle, in addition to the select fire modes of burst, or full auto, fires a cartridge between those two levels. .223 and 7.62x39mm are examples.

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle, even though it fires the same cartridge as the M4 and M16's, because it lacks the select fire capability of a 2 or 3 round burst, or full auto.

That is probably about right (speaking of owners of pre-'86 collectibles, not LEO/government/military suppliers and whatnot). Most of them are probably pistol caliber, though.

... which is exactly the effect the creation of the term "assault weapon" was intended to achieve.

An "assault rifle" is a selective-fire weapon (i.e. capable of semi-auto and "full" automatic fire*), designed to be fired from the shoulder, and chambered for an intermediate-powered cartridge (meaning more powerful than pistol rounds, but significantly less powerful than WWII-era infantry rifle rounds like the .30-06, .303 British, 7.92x51mm Mauser and 7.62x54mm Russian). Assault rifles were developed in response to findings that while the high-powered infantry rifles of WWII could engage targets out well over half a mile, very few infantrymen ever engaged a target beyond 200 meters (~1/8 of a mile);as a result, the typical WWII infantry rifle was unnecessarily heavy, to handle a round too powerful for the purpose for which it was actually used, while providing insufficient firepower for shorter-range engagements (e.g. in wooded and urban terrain). Doctrinally, an assault rifle provides the infantryman with the ability to engage targets at 200-300m (which is about as much as he's likely to need) while also giving him the firepower of a sub-machine gun at close quarters. Examples of assault rifles include the German Sturmgewehr 44, the Soviet AK family (and its clones and derivatives), the M16 family, the Belgian FNC, the French FAMAS, and the British L85.

The term "assault weapon" was coined to indicate, broadly speaking, any semi-auto-only variant of a military weapon capable of "full" automatic fire. The typical "assault weapon" is not significantly more lethal than any weapon chambered for the round but designed from the outset to be capable of only semi-automatic fire. The term "assault weapon" subsequently led to the term "assault pistol" for a firearm derived from a sub-machine gun design, but redesigned to fire semi-auto only and deprived of its shoulder stock (e.g. the Intratec TEC-9 and Cobray M11/9). From there, it was a logical progression to use the term "assault rifle" to indicate "assault weapons" that were, for American legal purposes, rifles. The problem was/is that the term "assault rifle" was already in use to indicate the aforementioned AKs, M16s and other selective-fire military hardware.

The upshot being that you can watch a TV news report, or read a newspaper, and have one item on Afghanistan talking about Taliban armed with assault rifles, and another item on Los Angeles talking about people having handed in "assault rifles" at some gun "buy-back," and not realize that the same term means two different things. And it's hard to shake the suspicion that someone, somewhere, wants you to not understand there's a difference.

From my reading of gun-writers and military terminology over the years, an "assault rifle" is a hand-held carbine of medium power capable of FULL-AUTO fire.

Machine gun: full-auto, using rifle-sized ammunition (usually crew-manned)
Sub-machine gun: full-auto, using pistol-sized ammunition (not revolver ammo)
Assault rifle: full-auto, using a round sized "between" convention rifle and convention pistol ammo.
"Assault weapon:" a term of art, popularized by gun-control advocates to denote a semi-auto carbine which LOOKS like assault rifle.

The number of "machine gun" owners (the term here is encompassed to mean all full-auto hand-held weapons) is estimated in some quarters at being below 200,000. I don't know the policy on releasing this data, perhaps someone here can fill that in.

"The weapons' <"assault weapon"> menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over full automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restriction on these weapons." -- Josh Sugarmann, then of the Violence Policy Center, 1988.

One of the political success stories of the gun-controllers is the unabashed corruption of these terms, something MSM has gleefully accepted and continues to accept.

I'll be dollars to donuts that if it was a rifle of any sort, it was an ordinary semi-auto rifle.

Article doesn't say.

So lacking info.

From the original post, an invader with some sort of gun uses it to beat, not shoot, a home owner. Somehow the home owner gets the gun away and uses it to kill the invader. I've a number of questions:

What happened to the other guy with the home invader? (Original post says invader hid behind the person who knocked on the door.)

Did the home owner use the gun to SHOOT the invader, or did he use it to beat the invader to death? If it's the latter then this isn't really a firearm issue. The weapon could have been a baseball bat.

Need more info.