NationStates Jolt Archive

... pencils miss spel words,
... cars make people drive drunk,
... spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat! :D

... pencils miss spel words,
... cars make people drive drunk,
... spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat! :D

I always thought she used a spork. You know, so she doesn't have to expend precious energy picking up and putting down utensils in order to ensure the quickest weight gain.

Forums make people post stupid threads

Silly man. It's not the gun, it's the bullets... unless of course you use the gun to blugeon someone.

I've been known to handle a spoon carelessly. It was loaded. I knew it and I used it anyway. But it had super fudge brownie ice cream on it!!! I couldnt resist!!! :eek:


morning Poppy :fluffle:


Whispering Legs.......dont be so grumpy

Nothing wrong with spoons, however, never never never lick a steak knife.

Guns? Sure ... no problem ... as long as we can agree that a gun serves absolutely no functional purpose other than to hurt/cause fear. That is their design and they do not multi-task.

I've been known to handle a spoon carelessly. It was loaded. I knew it and I used it anyway. But it had super fudge brownie ice cream on it!!! I couldnt resist!!! :eek:

morning Poppy :fluffle:

Whispering Legs.......dont be so grumpy
G'mornin' Peechy ... :fluffle:

How's my favorite e-daughter this morning? :)

Nothing wrong with spoons, however, never never never lick a steak knife.

Guns? Sure ... no problem ... as long as we can agree that a gun serves absolutely no functional purpose other than to hurt/cause fear. That is their design and they do not multi-task.
Mornin', Keruvalia-dood! :)

Granted that guns don't multi-task, if you will grant that sometimes you need their primary function. :D

Nothing wrong with spoons, however, never never never lick a steak knife.

Guns? Sure ... no problem ... as long as we can agree that a gun serves absolutely no functional purpose other than to hurt/cause fear. That is their design and they do not multi-task.

I've been able to prevent being robbed and beaten several times now with just the display of a handgun.

Sometimes generating fear is a GOOD thing. That, and it has a handy point and click interface.

G'mornin' Peechy ... :fluffle:

How's my favorite e-daughter this morning? :)


I'm just Peechy! ;)


This is the 2nd day the forum has been like a ghost town. Keruvalia, Poppy,what would be a neat thread to start?

... pencils miss spel words,
without a pencil, you could still mis-spell words

... cars make people drive drunk,
without the drink you couldn't do anything drunk

... spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat! :D
she made herself fat & didn't need a spoon

but guns... are there many things as lethal? without a gun can you kill another so easily? no. by extention, the gun is the problem.

sorry if that made no sense - my brain is weird today... :confused: and i am obviously unable to take a joke today... :headbang:

Granted that guns don't multi-task, if you will grant that sometimes you need their primary function. :D

True ... sometimes a pointed stick just doesn't do the trick.

I've been able to prevent being robbed and beaten several times now with just the display of a handgun.


Several times? Wow ... people must really not like you.

You know, I'd like to have some kind of long range protection in case an intruder came into my house. But I dont like the idea of a gun in the house with children. I mean yes I know people have gun safes and store the ammo in a seperate place, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being able to grab the gun if an intruder breaks in. I mean they arent going to stand there and wait on you to run and get the bullets. I have a golf club under the bed that is kind of handy....but what if the intruder is carrying something more powerful than a 9 iron?

They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.

Silly man. It's not the gun, it's the bullets... unless of course you use the gun to blugeon someone.
So, to extend the analogy:

... pencil lead makes people miss spel words,
... gasoline makes people drive drunk,
... the food jumps off the spoon to make Rosie O'Donnel fat??? :confused:

This is the 2nd day the forum has been like a ghost town. Keruvalia, Poppy,what would be a neat thread to start?

I dunno ... lately it seems threads that aren't about religion or Howard Dean gt sent off to spam.

without a pencil, you could still mis-spell words


without the drink you couldn't do anything drunk


she made herself fat & didn't need a spoon

but guns... are there many things as lethal? without a gun can you kill another so easily? no. by extention, the gun is the problem.

sorry if that made no sense - my brain is weird today... :confused:


If that were true, then the people in Northern Virginia would be killing each other at a rate far, far higher than in the District of Columbia.

It's funny - even though rates of gun ownership are far, far lower in Washington, D.C., and guns are completely illegal in Washington, D.C., and even though it is now legal for any resident of Northern Virginia to carry a pistol in the open in public (and easy to get a concealed carry permit), and even though gun ownership rates are FAR higher in Northern Virginia than in Washington, D.C., there are easily ten times as many firearms deaths in Washington, D.C. over the past year than there were in Northern Virginia.

If you want to know just how bad that is, consider that about 250,000 people actually live in Washington, D.C., and over 5 million people live in Northern Virginia. In fact, we could isolate most of the gun violence in Washington, D.C. into two sections of the city - Ward 7 and Ward 8.

If the war on drugs was to stop now, and drugs were legal - most of the violence in the city (indeed, in the US) would stop - because most of the violence is the result of drug gang competition. And if the government subsidized drugs for people who couldn't afford drugs, the majority of street crime would go away.

So, do you want to keep spending 40 billion per year on the war on drugs, and watch people kill each other (if you can't stop the drugs, you certainly won't stop the guns from coming in), and pass laws that criminalize an additional sector of the population that has nothing to do with the problem, or do you want to legalize drugs and watch the killing STOP.

You know, I'd like to have some kind of long range protection in case an intruder came into my house. But I dont like the idea of a gun in the house with children. I mean yes I know people have gun safes and store the ammo in a seperate place, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being able to grab the gun if an intruder breaks in. I mean they arent going to stand there and wait on you to run and get the bullets. I have a golf club under the bed that is kind of handy....but what if the intruder is carrying something more powerful than a 9 iron?

They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.
I know what you mean. I refused to own a gun while my children were living at home ( when some of them moved back home it was a different story! ). The question will soon become moot though, because they are very close to developing a gun which will respond only to its owner's grip, no one else's. :)

Now, I don't have that problem. :D

You know, I'd like to have some kind of long range protection in case an intruder came into my house. But I dont like the idea of a gun in the house with children. I mean yes I know people have gun safes and store the ammo in a seperate place, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being able to grab the gun if an intruder breaks in. I mean they arent going to stand there and wait on you to run and get the bullets. I have a golf club under the bed that is kind of handy....but what if the intruder is carrying something more powerful than a 9 iron?

If you don't want a gun in the house, then don't have one. If someone does break into your house, your best bet would be to leave the house. A gun, in untrained hands, is a very dangerous thing. Even if you've taken every step to insure your children will never get to it, you could miss an intruder and send a bullet right through the wall and into your child's skull. If someone breaks in, grab your kids and get out. Let them take what they want. It is, after all, just stuff. Replaceable material possessions should never be valued over life.

They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.

Which brings up my other suggestion: Tazer. No messy blood spills, no going through walls, bad guy subdued.

I know what you mean. I refused to own a gun while my children were living at home ( when some of them moved back home it was a different story! ). The question will soon become moot though, because they are very close to developing a gun which will respond only to its owner's grip, no one else's. :)

Now, I don't have that problem. :D

ohhhhh now this sounds interesting! how are they gonna make the guns only respond to single person?

Wow....they are working on a weapon like that?? Dang.

I read this story a few years back where this kid was supposed to be staying over at a friends house and he ended up coming home in the middle of the night for whatever reason, and the father thought it was an intruder and he ended up shooting his own son. He died. Can you imagine :confused: :(

I know what you mean. I refused to own a gun while my children were living at home ( when some of them moved back home it was a different story! ). The question will soon become moot though, because they are very close to developing a gun which will respond only to its owner's grip, no one else's. :)

Now, I don't have that problem. :D

The user grip identification system will help with the accidental misuse of guns by children, but will have no long term effect on the ability of the criminal to obtain useable guns from the homes of law abiding citizens. Remember the transponder chips that were put into car ignition systems to stop the theft of cars. No long term effect. There are always ways to beat these systems.

I think land mines should be legalised I mean what it a group of people try to go on my property? Or if I'm not in?

And rocket launchers what if a group of people in an armored car who want to kill my familly come?

And stealth bombers what if a whole city wants to kill all my extended family?

And nuclear bombs what if a whole nation of people want to come and rape and kill all my extended family?

Nothing wrong with spoons, however, never never never lick a steak knife.

Guns? Sure ... no problem ... as long as we can agree that a gun serves absolutely no functional purpose other than to hurt/cause fear. That is their design and they do not multi-task.

they can be used as a large key ring/fob

If that were true, then the people in Northern Virginia would be killing each other at a rate far, far higher than in the District of Columbia.

It's funny - even though rates of gun ownership are far, far lower in Washington, D.C., and guns are completely illegal in Washington, D.C., and even though it is now legal for any resident of Northern Virginia to carry a pistol in the open in public (and easy to get a concealed carry permit), and even though gun ownership rates are FAR higher in Northern Virginia than in Washington, D.C., there are easily ten times as many firearms deaths in Washington, D.C. over the past year than there were in Northern Virginia.

If you want to know just how bad that is, consider that about 250,000 people actually live in Washington, D.C., and over 5 million people live in Northern Virginia. In fact, we could isolate most of the gun violence in Washington, D.C. into two sections of the city - Ward 7 and Ward 8.

If the war on drugs was to stop now, and drugs were legal - most of the violence in the city (indeed, in the US) would stop - because most of the violence is the result of drug gang competition. And if the government subsidized drugs for people who couldn't afford drugs, the majority of street crime would go away.

So, do you want to keep spending 40 billion per year on the war on drugs, and watch people kill each other (if you can't stop the drugs, you certainly won't stop the guns from coming in), and pass laws that criminalize an additional sector of the population that has nothing to do with the problem, or do you want to legalize drugs and watch the killing STOP.
It's not an either/or proposition. I would prefer they legalize guns, continue to make drugs illegal, and raise the penalties for illegal use of both! :)

If that were true, then the people in Northern Virginia would be killing each other at a rate far, far higher than in the District of Columbia.

It's funny - even though rates of gun ownership are far, far lower in Washington, D.C., and guns are completely illegal in Washington, D.C., and even though it is now legal for any resident of Northern Virginia to carry a pistol in the open in public (and easy to get a concealed carry permit), and even though gun ownership rates are FAR higher in Northern Virginia than in Washington, D.C., there are easily ten times as many firearms deaths in Washington, D.C. over the past year than there were in Northern Virginia.

If you want to know just how bad that is, consider that about 250,000 people actually live in Washington, D.C., and over 5 million people live in Northern Virginia. In fact, we could isolate most of the gun violence in Washington, D.C. into two sections of the city - Ward 7 and Ward 8.

If the war on drugs was to stop now, and drugs were legal - most of the violence in the city (indeed, in the US) would stop - because most of the violence is the result of drug gang competition. And if the government subsidized drugs for people who couldn't afford drugs, the majority of street crime would go away.

So, do you want to keep spending 40 billion per year on the war on drugs, and watch people kill each other (if you can't stop the drugs, you certainly won't stop the guns from coming in), and pass laws that criminalize an additional sector of the population that has nothing to do with the problem, or do you want to legalize drugs and watch the killing STOP.
well, ill be honest and admit i don't know gun crime specifics. i stand by my arguement as being logically true, however (in my head at least ;) )
if it is true that most violent crime is associated directly with the drugs trade, then removing the trade would definatley seem a good option. while i'm not in favour of full drugs legalisation (yet), a number of changes could be made to drugs laws to reduce the illegal and violent drugs trade. if you're interested, here's (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388895) a few of my thoughts on the matter (ideas for UK drug laws reform, but the principles are applicable to the US i think).

If you don't want a gun in the house, then don't have one. If someone does break into your house, your best bet would be to leave the house. A gun, in untrained hands, is a very dangerous thing. Even if you've taken every step to insure your children will never get to it, you could miss an intruder and send a bullet right through the wall and into your child's skull. If someone breaks in, grab your kids and get out. Let them take what they want. It is, after all, just stuff. Replaceable material possessions should never be valued over life.



Which brings up my other suggestion: Tazer. No messy blood spills, no going through walls, bad guy subdued.


Youre right Keru, it is just stuff. If I woke quickly and was aware someone was in the house....absolutely.... I'd grab the kids and go out a window or something. I guess my fear is that if someone got in and was quiet enough to sneak up on me and like be right therer in my bedroom.....what would I do?

I thought about a Tazer! I might look into them. Of course, my luck, I'd end up in a struggle with the person and end up zapping myself-lol.

I'm just Peechy! ;)

This is the 2nd day the forum has been like a ghost town. Keruvalia, Poppy,what would be a neat thread to start?
Hmm. Threads about children don't seem to generate much interest on here, neither do threads about relationships or most other positive things. Sigh. Where's John Kerry when you need him??? ;)

I live in a rural area in Canada and we've never owned a gun. Other people own guns for hunting here and some would fire off a shot if there was something threatening their livestock etc. Thats about all we use a gun for around here :) I don't personally know anyone who owns a handgun.

does it show that I'm bored?

The user grip identification system will help with the accidental misuse of guns by children, but will have no long term effect on the ability of the criminal to obtain useable guns from the homes of law abiding citizens. Remember the transponder chips that were put into car ignition systems to stop the theft of cars. No long term effect. There are always ways to beat these systems.
You mean kinda like: "It's impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious?" :D

ohhhhh now this sounds interesting! how are they gonna make the guns only respond to single person?
I'm not sure. Anyone else know how this system works???

does it show that I'm bored?
im so bored too. so very bored.
hey, whats the chance we both get to 1000 posts today? (attempting to alleviate boredom...)

I'm not sure. Anyone else know how this system works???

As I had understood it, the system was basicaly the same as the transponder system with cars. When you obtain the gun it comes with a bracelet or ring or some such. If this is not within a specified distance of the firearm, then the gun is disabled.

Not exactly personalised, but certainly more accident proof.

A firearm is a tool. I am the weapon.

I believe a knife is a more effective tool to defend ones self, but it is messier. It doesn't ever run out of ammo unless you are too weak to use it. I hope I never have to use a firearm to defend myself, but one day it may become necessary

Wow....they are working on a weapon like that?? Dang.

I read this story a few years back where this kid was supposed to be staying over at a friends house and he ended up coming home in the middle of the night for whatever reason, and the father thought it was an intruder and he ended up shooting his own son. He died. Can you imagine :confused: :(
OMG! Every parent's and gun-owner's nightmare! I can't even begin to imagine! :(

A firearm is a tool. I am the weapon.

I believe a knife is a more effective tool to defend ones self, but it is messier. It doesn't ever run out of ammo unless you are too weak to use it. I hope I never have to use a firearm to defend myself, but one day it may become necessary
I've used both and trust me when I say that, although a knife can be extremely effective at arm's distance, a gun is faster and much better for stand-off capability. Not only that, but not many home-invaders use knives as weapon of choice. :(

Youre right Keru, it is just stuff. If I woke quickly and was aware someone was in the house....absolutely.... I'd grab the kids and go out a window or something. I guess my fear is that if someone got in and was quiet enough to sneak up on me and like be right therer in my bedroom.....what would I do?

I thought about a Tazer! I might look into them. Of course, my luck, I'd end up in a struggle with the person and end up zapping myself-lol.

By all means, retreat if possible. But if you're the victim of a home invasion instead of a burglary, then they have an interest in YOU. Most of the rapes here (including rapes of men) are the result of home invasion here. It is the fastest rising crime here because the criminal knows that he can act without interruption. Once you're subdued, you can't call the police or do anything else. They rob you, rape you, beat you, and in some cases here, kill you.

So, for those situations, you have the first few seconds to react to change the situation. If you're not a master at some fighting art, or if you're not ready and trained to use a firearm (and it isn't in your hand when you answer the door), you're out of luck.

The only problem with the Taser is that you get one shot and you have to hit them with BOTH darts. If you miss, the bad guy is not going to let you half disassemble the Taser in an effort to reload it.

It's best to have a layered approach to defense. Awareness, mindset, some physical capabilities, pepper spray, pistol, and cellphone. That, and some regular training. While I have found that the mere indication that I have a gun is more than enough to dissaude some people, it's nice to know that I could use something else.

BTW, it is a myth that civilians commonly lose their handgun to an attacker. Or that civilians miss often. Civilians are often far more competent with a firearm than the police. Civilians hit more felons, kill more felons, are involved in a justified shooting more often, and are less likely to lose their firearm to an attacker than the police.

I'm not sure. Anyone else know how this system works???

You wear a ring with an RFID tag in it. The gun has an interlock built in that senses the RFID tag. The tag has a very short range - measured in inches.

Several problems have arisen.

If you are struggling with someone for the gun, and he has the gun, and you are holding his hand, your ring will still be close enough to activate the gun.

The interlocks have not been proven reliable enough to allow a police officer to count on the gun firing on demand. It's a moving part that requires a battery - and batteries go dead or become weak.

Police agencies like the idea of a gun that can't be fired by anyone except the authorized user - but they want the gun to fire when they want it to 100 percent of the time. The failure rate is evidently dangerously high.

By all means, retreat if possible. But if you're the victim of a home invasion instead of a burglary, then they have an interest in YOU. Most of the rapes here (including rapes of men) are the result of home invasion here. It is the fastest rising crime here because the criminal knows that he can act without interruption. Once you're subdued, you can't call the police or do anything else. They rob you, rape you, beat you, and in some cases here, kill you.

So, for those situations, you have the first few seconds to react to change the situation. If you're not a master at some fighting art, or if you're not ready and trained to use a firearm (and it isn't in your hand when you answer the door), you're out of luck.

The only problem with the Taser is that you get one shot and you have to hit them with BOTH darts. If you miss, the bad guy is not going to let you half disassemble the Taser in an effort to reload it.

It's best to have a layered approach to defense. Awareness, mindset, some physical capabilities, pepper spray, pistol, and cellphone. That, and some regular training. While I have found that the mere indication that I have a gun is more than enough to dissaude some people, it's nice to know that I could use something else.

BTW, it is a myth that civilians commonly lose their handgun to an attacker. Or that civilians miss often. Civilians are often far more competent with a firearm than the police. Civilians hit more felons, kill more felons, are involved in a justified shooting more often, and are less likely to lose their firearm to an attacker than the police.
Excellent post, just excellent! :)

I would add to that list of layerd defense capabilities: knowing how to improvise a weapon from objects at hand. Pencils and pens can make excellent thrusting weapons, any metal object can make a sizable dent, even a rolled-up magazine can be a potent weapon if you know how to use it and where to strike. Anything which extends your reach or striking power is a potential weapon.

I guess my fear is that if someone got in and was quiet enough to sneak up on me and like be right therer in my bedroom.....what would I do?


In all honesty, I have no idea. A lot of times, when people break into houses, they're just looking for stuff to sell. Offer them your stuff. Just let them take it and tell them (don't ask them) not to hurt you. "I have children. You can have whatever you want from the house, but do not hurt me or them." said in a calm and confident manner will work quite effectively. People who would break into someone's house often rely on the resident of the house to be afraid.

Don't be afraid. At least, do not let it show. Even if they're waving a gun in your face, do not show one second of fear. If they fire the gun, chances are they have no training and will either miss you completely (many people are often surprised just how hard it is to actually shoot someone) or not hit anything vital. So do not be afraid. Make constant mental notes and burn them into your memory for later discussion with the police.

Offer, however, to the burglar the option of leaving now without consequences. A good amount of the time, burglars are shocked to find you home as these people are cowards and tend to only break into unoccupied homes. He/She will be just as afraid as you are, but do not lose control for one second.

Make sure your children know how to dial 911 and can give your name and address over the phone. Any child over 5 should be able to do this. You can practice with an unplugged telephone. I've seen many stories of an adult keeping a would-be burglar occupied while one of their children sneaks to a phone and calls 911. I find it sadly disturbing that we live in a time where such skills are necessary, but I don't see that changing any time soon.

Anyway ... guess I've babbled on enough about this.

You wear a ring with an RFID tag in it. The gun has an interlock built in that senses the RFID tag. The tag has a very short range - measured in inches.

Several problems have arisen.

If you are struggling with someone for the gun, and he has the gun, and you are holding his hand, your ring will still be close enough to activate the gun.

The interlocks have not been proven reliable enough to allow a police officer to count on the gun firing on demand. It's a moving part that requires a battery - and batteries go dead or become weak.

Police agencies like the idea of a gun that can't be fired by anyone except the authorized user - but they want the gun to fire when they want it to 100 percent of the time. The failure rate is evidently dangerously high.
Ah, technology! Increasing our reach while at the same time making us more dependent! :)

In all honesty, I have no idea. A lot of times, when people break into houses, they're just looking for stuff to sell. Offer them your stuff. Just let them take it and tell them (don't ask them) not to hurt you. "I have children. You can have whatever you want from the house, but do not hurt me or them." said in a calm and confident manner will work quite effectively. People who would break into someone's house often rely on the resident of the house to be afraid.

Don't be afraid. At least, do not let it show. Even if they're waving a gun in your face, do not show one second of fear. If they fire the gun, chances are they have no training and will either miss you completely (many people are often surprised just how hard it is to actually shoot someone) or not hit anything vital. So do not be afraid. Make constant mental notes and burn them into your memory for later discussion with the police.

Offer, however, to the burglar the option of leaving now without consequences. A good amount of the time, burglars are shocked to find you home as these people are cowards and tend to only break into unoccupied homes. He/She will be just as afraid as you are, but do not lose control for one second.

Make sure your children know how to dial 911 and can give your name and address over the phone. Any child over 5 should be able to do this. You can practice with an unplugged telephone. I've seen many stories of an adult keeping a would-be burglar occupied while one of their children sneaks to a phone and calls 911. I find it sadly disturbing that we live in a time where such skills are necessary, but I don't see that changing any time soon.

Anyway ... guess I've babbled on enough about this.


Thanks Keru :)

guns dont kill people rappers do

two cents


People have been killing people since long before guns were ever even thought of.


Guns just allowed killing to become faster :mp5: and easier, :sniper: kinda like the assembly line for murder.


Just a couple of random thoughts from one who was raised on a study of history.

In all honesty, I have no idea. A lot of times, when people break into houses, they're just looking for stuff to sell. Offer them your stuff. Just let them take it and tell them (don't ask them) not to hurt you. "I have children. You can have whatever you want from the house, but do not hurt me or them." said in a calm and confident manner will work quite effectively. People who would break into someone's house often rely on the resident of the house to be afraid.

Don't be afraid. At least, do not let it show. Even if they're waving a gun in your face, do not show one second of fear. If they fire the gun, chances are they have no training and will either miss you completely (many people are often surprised just how hard it is to actually shoot someone) or not hit anything vital. So do not be afraid. Make constant mental notes and burn them into your memory for later discussion with the police.

Offer, however, to the burglar the option of leaving now without consequences. A good amount of the time, burglars are shocked to find you home as these people are cowards and tend to only break into unoccupied homes. He/She will be just as afraid as you are, but do not lose control for one second.

Make sure your children know how to dial 911 and can give your name and address over the phone. Any child over 5 should be able to do this. You can practice with an unplugged telephone. I've seen many stories of an adult keeping a would-be burglar occupied while one of their children sneaks to a phone and calls 911. I find it sadly disturbing that we live in a time where such skills are necessary, but I don't see that changing any time soon.

Anyway ... guess I've babbled on enough about this.
Another impressive post! You're just a kewl, kewl doood! :D

Excellent post, just excellent! :)

I would add to that list of layerd defense capabilities: knowing how to improvise a weapon from objects at hand. Pencils and pens can make excellent thrusting weapons, any metal object can make a sizable dent, even a rolled-up magazine can be a potent weapon if you know how to use it and where to strike. Anything which extends your reach or striking power is a potential weapon.

I keep one of those big metal Magnum flashlights next to the bed. I can blind and bludgeon an attacker simultaneously. Which adds to my previous advice: keep a very powerful flashlight next to the bed. If you sense someone is in your room in the dark, blinding them with a flashlight can give you vital seconds to strike. It also keeps them from knowing exactly where you are. Don't hold the flashlight in front of your body because an intruder with a gun is likely to fire in the direction of the light, but keep the main focus of the beam on their face.

I keep one of those big metal Magnum flashlights next to the bed. I can blind and bludgeon an attacker simultaneously. Which adds to my previous advice: keep a very powerful flashlight next to the bed. If you sense someone is in your room in the dark, blinding them with a flashlight can give you vital seconds to strike. It also keeps them from knowing exactly where you are. Don't hold the flashlight in front of your body because an intruder with a gun is likely to fire in the direction of the light, but keep the main focus of the beam on their face.


*takes notes*

good stuff!

I keep one of those big metal Magnum flashlights next to the bed. I can blind and bludgeon an attacker simultaneously. Which adds to my previous advice: keep a very powerful flashlight next to the bed. If you sense someone is in your room in the dark, blinding them with a flashlight can give you vital seconds to strike. It also keeps them from knowing exactly where you are. Don't hold the flashlight in front of your body because an intruder with a gun is likely to fire in the direction of the light, but keep the main focus of the beam on their face.

My pistol has a Surefire mounted in front of the trigger guard. I can blind and shoot an attacker simultaneously.

Yeah, and speed doesn't kill...the impact does.

I keep one of those big metal Magnum flashlights next to the bed. I can blind and bludgeon an attacker simultaneously. Which adds to my previous advice: keep a very powerful flashlight next to the bed. If you sense someone is in your room in the dark, blinding them with a flashlight can give you vital seconds to strike. It also keeps them from knowing exactly where you are. Don't hold the flashlight in front of your body because an intruder with a gun is likely to fire in the direction of the light, but keep the main focus of the beam on their face.
No offense, but I feel sad that you live somewhere that you honestly think you need to prepare for something like this...

The boonies are much nicer:)

*takes notes*

good stuff!

Yes it is! I knew there was some reason I liked this Keruvalia dood! :D

My pistol has a Surefire mounted in front of the trigger guard. I can blind and shoot an attacker simultaneously.
I tried those but decided to not use one. It throws off my aim. :(

My pistol has a Surefire mounted in front of the trigger guard. I can blind and shoot an attacker simultaneously.

Ah ... well ... I wouldn't want to kill someone unless I felt I was in mortal danger. If all he wants is my TV, he can have it. I'm not going to kill someone over a TV.

Yes it is! I knew there was some reason I liked this Keruvalia dood! :D
maybe because he's old too :p

Ah ... well ... I wouldn't want to kill someone unless I felt I was in mortal danger. If all he wants is my TV, he can have it. I'm not going to kill someone over a TV.
my man

No offense, but I feel sad that you live somewhere that you honestly think you need to prepare for something like this...

The boonies are much nicer:)

Oh I do live in the boonies. However, it is always good to have some sort of preparation. Even in the boonies, there are people who are less than honorable.

Ah ... well ... I wouldn't want to kill someone unless I felt I was in mortal danger. If all he wants is my TV, he can have it. I'm not going to kill someone over a TV.

I wouldn't kill someone over a TV. But I like to have the option if he's there to rape my daughter.

I'm just sensitive that way.

maybe because he's old too :p

Old?! Since when is 32 old? :p

Ah ... well ... I wouldn't want to kill someone unless I felt I was in mortal danger. If all he wants is my TV, he can have it. I'm not going to kill someone over a TV.
I agree, but sometimes that can be a very difficult decision to make in split-seconds under extreme stress.

Yeah, and speed doesn't kill...the impact does.
True. Or every crash in a F1 car would be fatal. It's not the speed, it's the speed reletive tothe vehicle, the conditions and the ability of the driver. So no speed does not kill, drivers do.

Yes it is! I knew there was some reason I liked this Keruvalia dood! :D


and hes also funny as hell and sarcastic like my idol....chandler bing.

I wouldn't kill someone over a TV. But I like to have the option if he's there to rape my daughter.


Agreed ... 100%.

Old?! Since when is 32 old? :p
Hehehe! You old fart! Give it up! LOL!

Old?! Since when is 32 old? :p

I know....LP thinks I'm a granny and I'm just 30.

but guns... are there many things as lethal? without a gun can you kill another so easily? no. by extention, the gun is the problem.


It would be much easier for me to kill you with crap I can buy at a supermarket for less than $20 than it would for me to try and kill you with a gun. I don't have to aim a bomb or go through any background checks to purchase the parts. Are you saying we should ban fertilizer or charcoal lighter fluid too?

The gun is not the problem. Gun violence, like all violence, is systemic of social issues. Work on fixing the social issues and you reduce all types of violence.

You'll never eliminate it, of course. That's the call of the trees still in us.

and hes also funny as hell and sarcastic like my idol....chandler bing.

awww ... you're sweet. :fluffle:

and hes also funny as hell and sarcastic like my idol....chandler bing.
"Chandler Bing?" Um ... [ sorts through memory files of comedians, pundits and generally funny people ]

Hmm... If my house was burgled, usually I would lock the room doors, and just let them take what they want while calling the police.

(Make sure the kids do the same too, my dad recommends us we lock our doors everynight, our windows are grilled so normal robbers can't come in by any normal means without making a big noise, if there's a fire, we have a balcony, can't climb up but can jump down without getting too injured)

Bottom line, Wouldn't want to get into a fight unless it's absolutely necessary or you don't have insurance :p. Things can be acquired again, lives can't.

But if their out to hurt you, make sure you have the upper advantage at attack, that you strike first before they do. Like hiding beside doors, so if that they kick it open, you'll have the first strike. Plus I got my handy ku'kri beside me, sharp enough that I destroyed my pc table trying it out. :p

They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.

I want the sonic gun that makes them crap their pants by using high frequency sounds.

"Chandler Bing?" Um ... [ sorts through memory files of comedians, pundits and generally funny people ]

Character from Friends. :)

I know....LP thinks I'm a granny and I'm just 30.
Well, if you're a "granny," then you're the best lookin' damned granny this old fart has ever seen! Heh!

Not only that, but what would that make me??? :eek:

awww ... you're sweet. :fluffle:


youve had me cracking up for about 3 days on your subtle sarcastic posts. I so dig that. * :fluffle: 's back*


and I am going to do that flashlight thing by the bed. I keep my cell next to my bed already. I should take up some kind of Martial Arts too so I can bring the intruder to his knees with my thumb and pinky or something.



Poppy.....Chandler Bing(real life Mathew Perry) is the super funny one on the show Friends.

These lessons in self defense (esp the Maglite) remind me of what happened to a few students living nearby myself.

They came in lateish one saturday night and slammed the door behind them, but the door didn't shut and was slightly open. On the sunday morning (in the middle of winter so it was till dark), an opportunist burgler came in and started to remove their stuff.

Needless to say the students heard him, and one being a medieval re-enactor, took down his (blunt) hand and a half sword off his shelf, and met his mate who was carrying a hefty Maglite and waited for the intruder to come upstairs. As the intruder did so, they shouted a warning not to come any further (by this time the third student had phoned the police), but the intruder drew a knife, and ran at them.

(This was all in the local paper, the next bit i heard from the student who had phoned the police)

The burglar ran at and tried to stab the guy with the maglite, who struck him over the head, whilst the guy with the blunt sword hit him with the flat of the blade on the back.

The burglar was unconcious due to being hit by the mag lite and was still so when the police arrived.

And despite what many people think of the british police and justice system, the students were commended for their appropriate use of force, as all the burglar got was a sore head and a sentance :D

I want the sonic gun that makes them crap their pants by using high frequency sounds.


I'd like to have one of those vomit sticks from Minority Report.

... pencils miss spel words,
... cars make people drive drunk,
... spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat! :D

Well, each of these things facilitates the other, in the same way that guns facilitate the easy killing of people, so in a sense yes, although for the second you need both cars and alcohol, and for the first and third the consequence is not quite as severe as a person dying, but otherwise your argument is "solid." That is to say, there are no major holes in it, but at the same time it isn't very meaningful.

awww ... you're sweet. :fluffle:
Hey! Whycome you didn't fluffle me when I gave you a compliment? Huh? Huh? Huh? :headbang:

I'd like to have one of those vomit sticks from Minority Report.

It's just a cattle prod. Most painful non-lethal method out there except maybe mace which can literally melt your eyes.

Well, if you're a "granny," then you're the best lookin' damned granny this old fart has ever seen! Heh!

Not only that, but what would that make me??? :eek:


If I'm a granny, then that would make you........dust maybe?

Well, each of these things facilitates the other, in the same way that guns facilitate the easy killing of people, so in a sense yes, although for the second you need both cars and alcohol, and for the first and third the consequence is not quite as severe as a person dying, but otherwise your argument is "solid." That is to say, there are no major holes in it, but at the same time it isn't very meaningful.
What ... EVER! Heh! :rolleyes:

Note to Our Earth: It was supposed to be funny, or at least mildly amusing! :p

Hey! Whycome you didn't fluffle me when I gave you a compliment? Huh? Huh? Huh? :headbang:

You're just not as pretty. ;)

If I'm a granny, then that would make you........dust maybe?
:eek:

I must strenuously object! :p

You're just not as pretty. ;)
Oh. Well, that just kinda decimated my objections, din'it? :D

I know....LP thinks I'm a granny and I'm just 30.
But a hot granny :fluffle:

What ... EVER! Heh! :rolleyes:

Note to Our Earth: It was supposed to be funny, or at least mildly amusing! :p

Oh, I totally new that, but my sense of humor can be very dry sometimes... dry like desert sand.

It's just a cattle prod. Most painful non-lethal method out there except maybe mace which can literally melt your eyes.

vomit stick sounds better.....

*walks into local gunshop/quickiemart*

"Can I get a box of 38 bullets, a Maglight........some Cheetos........oh....and one of those Vomit Sticks?"

Originally Posted by [b]Peechland[b]
They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.

Actually, the U.S. Army is developing (or has developed a prototype of) a laser weapon that only causes concussive damage like a pressure wave. So it is non-lethal.

Oh, I totally new that, but my sense of humor can be very dry sometimes... dry like desert sand.
[ Develops a sudden urge to get something to drink! ] :)

Look, guys, I lived twelve years in Mexico City, where crime is very high and on the rise. It's a place where you can be assaulted and killed while waiting for the traffic light to turn green; you can take a cab and two blocks later it will stop, let two people in and take for a ride to the bank machines; kids can be taken from the street and be held for ransom, sometimes as low as US$200. Knowing all that, I can tell you a gun is not the answer.

Now... an AK-47 and bullet proof windows, that may give you a fighting chance.

It's just a cattle prod.

Not *just*! I've been hit with a cattle prod and those things just sting a little. The sticks from Minority Report cause 20 seconds of uncontrollable, spastic vomitting.

vomit stick sounds better.....

*walks into local gunshop/quickiemart*

"Can I get a box of 38 bullets, a Maglight........some Cheetos........oh....and one of those Vomit Sticks?"
Hehehe! Actually, there are stores here in NC at which you can buy almost exactly that! :D

Actually, the U.S. Army is developing (or has developed a prototype of) a laser weapon that only causes concussive damage like a pressure wave. So it is non-lethal.

That's pretty random, I can't think of a way to make lasers do anything remotely like that. With sound it would be really easy, you just build a bunch of waves inside the gun all in phase and then release them all at once and it makes a huge noise and knocks down a wall. If you were to do the same thing wiht lasers it would just make a tiny whole through everything you pointed it at, and I mean everything.

Look, guys, I lived twelve years in Mexico City, where crime is very high and on the rise. It's a place where you can be assaulted and killed while waiting for the traffic light to turn green; you can take a cab and two blocks later it will stop, let two people in and take for a ride to the bank machines; kids can be taken from the street and be held for ransom, sometimes as low as US$200. Knowing all that, I can tell you a gun is not the answer.


Sounds like a charming place to live. Those damn travel brochures!

Look, guys, I lived twelve years in Mexico City, where crime is very high and on the rise. It's a place where you can be assaulted and killed while waiting for the traffic light to turn green; you can take a cab and two blocks later it will stop, let two people in and take for a ride to the bank machines; kids can be taken from the street and be held for ransom, sometimes as low as US$200. Knowing all that, I can tell you a gun is not the answer.

Now... an AK-47 and bullet proof windows, that may give you a fighting chance.


ack! :eek:

I'm guessing you moved?

Fear the government whom fears your guns :sniper:

Look, guys, I lived twelve years in Mexico City, where crime is very high and on the rise. It's a place where you can be assaulted and killed while waiting for the traffic light to turn green; you can take a cab and two blocks later it will stop, let two people in and take for a ride to the bank machines; kids can be taken from the street and be held for ransom, sometimes as low as US$200. Knowing all that, I can tell you a gun is not the answer.

Now... an AK-47 and bullet proof windows, that may give you a fighting chance.
And while you are at it. A rocketlauncher and a nuke sub

Look, guys, I lived twelve years in Mexico City, where crime is very high and on the rise. It's a place where you can be assaulted and killed while waiting for the traffic light to turn green; you can take a cab and two blocks later it will stop, let two people in and take for a ride to the bank machines; kids can be taken from the street and be held for ransom, sometimes as low as US$200. Knowing all that, I can tell you a gun is not the answer.

Now... an AK-47 and bullet proof windows, that may give you a fighting chance.
And this is the place from which we are accepting massive numbers of immigrants? :eek:

Not *just*! I've been hit with a cattle prod and those things just sting a little. The sticks from Minority Report cause 20 seconds of uncontrollable, spastic vomitting.

Well of course a rancher doesn't want his cows convulsing, he wants them to go somewhere, but the concept is basically the same, just with way more than necessary power. You can immobilize someone with a remarkably small amount of electricity because it basically just numbs their whole body.

Fear the government whom fears your guns :sniper:

Damn straight.

Also, carry a longarm rifle around with you at all times, it's not against the law, but it freaks the shit out of people.

Fear the government whom fears your guns :sniper:

Who, not Whom.

I don't think I have to worry too much about my government - which controls the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen - fearing any guns I would own.

Silly man. It's not the gun, it's the bullets... unless of course you use the gun to blugeon someone.

Yeah.. that´s right.. And don´t come and say anything else... Because I don´t care :p Isn´t this pic cool.. anyway I think so.. :sniper:
Kisses

And this is the place from which we are accepting massive numbers of immigrants? :eek:

Why do you think they're trying so hard to get out?

ack! :eek:

I'm guessing you moved?
Yep, I moved. The rest of the country is much better.

And this is the place from which we are accepting massive numbers of immigrants? :eek:
Well, you're not exactly accepting them, it's not like they're asking for permission to enter. But most people who leave the country move because of poverty and because they don't want to become violent criminals or victims of violence. The violent people stay in Mexico where they can indulge in their habits without concern for being punished.

So, to extend the analogy:

... pencil lead makes people miss spel words,
... gasoline makes people drive drunk,
... the food jumps off the spoon to make Rosie O'Donnel fat??? :confused:It wasn't an analogy... just a smug, humourous observation... c.c

Anyway, you use the word make. I'll agree with you than just possessing something doesn't make you perform an action. Unless you're very weak minded and impressionable.

I just have a problem with guns. The only reason I can see that people are attracted to them is as a tool of fear and an instrument of death, which I guess gives an adrenaline rush to some people. I think those are really base reasons.

a) Mis-spelling a word doesn't hurt anyone, but a grammar nazi. Most people don't intend to misspell a word anyway

b) Alcohol doesn't only facilitate drink driving, I need a fair bit of it to loosen up. c.c

c) We all need to eat.

I have to tell you the biggest problem with having a gun for home protection is the fact that you have to pull the trigger. It is easy to say you will shoot an intruder, not so easy to do it.

My father decided during the riots in LA that he wanted to borrow one of my guns for home protection (Dad was a pacifist). I asked him how he would use it.

This was the senario:

Bad guy in hallway of house

Dad: Freeze

Bad guy keeps moving toward him.

Dad : Stop! dont move

Bad guy keeps moving toward him

Dad: Freeze or I will shoot

I explained to my dad that in that amount of time the guy could have pulled a gun and shot him.

I also asked where he would shoot the bad guy, he said in the leg or arm. The chance of my dad making that shot was slim to none. I told him that if he were going to shoot a bad guy he would need to shoot for the middle of the body multiple times. His response was that if he shot him there he would probably kill him.

If you are not sure you can kill the bad guy dont have the gun.

(i didnt loan my dad the gun, I gave him a baseball bat)

I just have a problem with guns. The only reason I can see that people are attracted to them is as a tool of fear and an instrument of death, which I guess gives an adrenaline rush to some people. I think those are really base reasons.

Having been hospitalized as a result of a beating I received because I didn't have more than five dollars on me when two men were robbing me, and wasn't carrying my credit cards (my ribs and jaw were broken, and then they proceeded to break my fingers for fun), I decided that the next time someone wanted money, they could have it.

But...

If they want to beat me, kill me, rape me, or otherwise abuse me, well, they can die on the spot.

The base reason for me is survival. I'd rather be alive and well, thank you very much.

Having been hospitalized as a result of a beating I received because I didn't have more than five dollars on me when two men were robbing me, and wasn't carrying my credit cards (my ribs and jaw were broken, and then they proceeded to break my fingers for fun), I decided that the next time someone wanted money, they could have it.

But...

If they want to beat me, kill me, rape me, or otherwise abuse me, well, they can die on the spot.

The base reason for me is survival. I'd rather be alive and well, thank you very much.


good lord! :( how long ago did that happen?

I forgot to mention I have two children in my house, I keep my guns locked up at a gun range where I target shoot.

I am not concerned that my children will misuse them as I spent many hours training them on how to use them (I trained them military style). They have friends that might get to them, the risk of an accident is not worth it.

I have the bat I loaned my dad for home protection.

How do you manage that WL? You seem to be the victim of so many crimes. The only times I've ever had something stolen that was my property was when our house was burgled whilst we were on holiday and when family came round and my cousin borrowed my bike (no, she didn't steal it, she was mugged).

good lord! :( how long ago did that happen?

1995.

There's an interesting development here in Fairfax County. Hispanic gangs, when they rob you, do so in numbers and are armed with machetes. If you don't have enough money, they hack off fingers and hands for fun.

It's happened twice in the past month.

Now, if there are multiple assailants, you would have to be very, very good with a gun to beat all of them. But, if they want to take a hand or a few fingers, I figure that two or three of them dead is an even trade.

BTW, they are very careful how they do this. They seem to go out of their way to identify people who appear (or are likely to be) unarmed. Now that open carry is legal, more people are carrying a pistol - and you can see it.

Want to avoid being attacked? Try not to look like a free lunch.

If that were true, then the people in Northern Virginia would be killing each other at a rate far, far higher than in the District of Columbia.

It's funny - even though rates of gun ownership are far, far lower in Washington, D.C., and guns are completely illegal in Washington, D.C., and even though it is now legal for any resident of Northern Virginia to carry a pistol in the open in public (and easy to get a concealed carry permit), and even though gun ownership rates are FAR higher in Northern Virginia than in Washington, D.C., there are easily ten times as many firearms deaths in Washington, D.C. over the past year than there were in Northern Virginia.

And gun ownership rates are higher in Canada than they are in the US, yet there is astonishingly less gun violence. And in the UK, where guns have to be kept at gun clubs, there is almost no gun violence. Statistics can say whatever you want them to, really.

So now I'm going to play with some statistics. I used to live in Northern Virginia. I've spent much time in D.C. Comparing the two is a little silly. You know -- and I certainly know -- that a metropolitan area is going to have more violence of all kinds, including gun violence. Many of the murders in D.C. are of representatives of other countries -- ambassadors, consuls, and so on. How many of the guns used in D.C. were obtained, legally or otherwise, in gun-crazy North Virginia? Use any of those factors, and see what they can do to those statistics.

Let's compare Northern Virginia to Eastern Massachusetts instead. Let's pick two, nice suburban towns. Are there more gun deaths/gun violence in Arlington, VA or Lexington, MA, I wonder? It's a much fairer comparison than Northern VA and Washington D.C., if you think about it. (And of course, those can be juggled, too.)

I was shot just outside Philadelphia, PA. I was shot in the chest with an armor-piercing bullet. It went in, through my lung and liver, and out of my back. It missed my ribs by some miracle. It missed my heart by about 2 inches. The shooter was not an acquaintance or a stalker; it was a random mugging. It could happen to anyone. This is one of the reasons I get touchy when people try to downplay exactly how dangerous guns are. So factor that into the things I say above, and try not to get too angry.

Having been hospitalized as a result of a beating I received because I didn't have more than five dollars on me when two men were robbing me, and wasn't carrying my credit cards (my ribs and jaw were broken, and then they proceeded to break my fingers for fun), I decided that the next time someone wanted money, they could have it.

But...

If they want to beat me, kill me, rape me, or otherwise abuse me, well, they can die on the spot.

The base reason for me is survival. I'd rather be alive and well, thank you very much.yeah, i got jumped coming home from the store, and the guys took my wallet and then started beating the crap out of me with the 2-liter of Coke i had just bought. i was a good sport about it at the time, took my licks and then got up afterwards and drank the Coke on my way home (because yes, i am that punk rock), but i decided that would be the last time a couple of grubby teenage jerks got the better of me. i never carried a gun, but i sure as hell went out conspicuously armed in that neighborhood.

happily, i have long since moved out of that nasty area, and now live in a place where you don't have to pack if you want to go for a sandwich at 10pm.

1995.

There's an interesting development here in Fairfax County. Hispanic gangs, when they rob you, do so in numbers and are armed with machetes. If you don't have enough money, they hack off fingers and hands for fun.

It's happened twice in the past month.

Now, if there are multiple assailants, you would have to be very, very good with a gun to beat all of them. But, if they want to take a hand or a few fingers, I figure that two or three of them dead is an even trade.

BTW, they are very careful how they do this. They seem to go out of their way to identify people who appear (or are likely to be) unarmed. Now that open carry is legal, more people are carrying a pistol - and you can see it.

Want to avoid being attacked? Try not to look like a free lunch.

where do you live doll? i dunno where fairfax county is.

yeah, i got jumped coming home from the store, and the guys took my wallet and then started beating the crap out of me with the 2-liter of Coke i had just bought. i was a good sport about it at the time, took my licks and then got up afterwards and drank the Coke on my way home (because yes, i am that punk rock), but i decided that would be the last time a couple of grubby teenage jerks got the better of me. i never carried a gun, but i sure as hell went out conspicuously armed in that neighborhood.

happily, i have long since moved out of that nasty area, and now live in a place where you don't have to pack if you want to go for a sandwich at 10pm.


:eek: Bottle! :(

:eek: Bottle! :(
hey, at the time it sucked, but now i have this really hard core story i can tell at parties! plus it motivated me to learn more self defense, which i am really really glad i did.

And gun ownership rates are higher in Canada than they are in the US, yet there is astonishingly less gun violence. And in the UK, where guns have to be kept at gun clubs, there is almost no gun violence. Statistics can say whatever you want them to, really.

So now I'm going to play with some statistics. I used to live in Northern Virginia. I've spent much time in D.C. Comparing the two is a little silly. You know -- and I certainly know -- that a metropolitan area is going to have more violence of all kinds, including gun violence. Many of the murders in D.C. are of representatives of other countries -- ambassadors, consuls, and so on. How many of the guns used in D.C. were obtained, legally or otherwise, in gun-crazy North Virginia? Use any of those factors, and see what they can do to those statistics.

Let's compare Northern Virginia to Eastern Massachusetts instead. Let's pick two, nice suburban towns. Are there more gun deaths/gun violence in Arlington, VA or Lexington, MA, I wonder? It's a much fairer comparison than Northern VA and Washington D.C., if you think about it. (And of course, those can be juggled, too.)

I was shot just outside Philadelphia, PA. I was shot in the chest with an armor-piercing bullet. It went in, through my lung and liver, and out of my back. It missed my ribs by some miracle. It missed my heart by about 2 inches. The shooter was not an acquaintance or a stalker; it was a random mugging. It could happen to anyone. This is one of the reasons I get touchy when people try to downplay exactly how dangerous guns are. So factor that into the things I say above, and try not to get too angry.

The problem that I have is that two adjacent counties, Montgomery and Fairfax, which are both affluent suburbs, have traded most of their violent crime (and most violent crime here is still non-gun).

Because of concealed carry and open carry, Northern Virginia has 33 percent less violent crime than before, while Montgomery has had a proportional increase. Felons I talk to say that it's not safe to rob someone in Northern Virginia anymore. They say that even if they are unarmed, it's an easy thing to drive to Rockville (in Montgomery County) and rob someone there. They know they won't get shot, and the police will not arrive in time.

I've prevented two robberies of myself with my pistol. No one got hurt. No one was arrested. But I didn't get beat up.

And, if someone were to attempt to rob me with a handgun or other weapon, at this point, they had better start killing me at the start, because I'm going to be shooting as soon as my pistol comes out.

I'm rather surprised to hear of an armor-piercing handgun bullet, considering that no more than a handful (and I'm talking less than ten) of sample boxes of KTW ammunition ever entered the United States. Same things for a few boxes of the Norma steel jacketed 9mm. The French THV ammunition has never been imported here, so that's out. I'm wondering if you have a brand name (since all armor-piercing pistol bullets do so by exclusive patented methods, they all have brand names).

It's still possible to come across black-tip 30-06 military ammunition (if you like firing 50 year old ammunition you picked up at a surplus store), but that would have killed you, as it's a very, very powerful Rifle caliber.

While I do sympathize with you being shot, I believe that the people who identified the bullet for you were telling you a story.

where do you live doll? i dunno where fairfax county is.

Northern Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C.

If you look at a map, you can see the Potomac River.

We're west and south of the river.

D.C. is east of the river.

Montgomery County (where certified unarmed victims live, and they know it) is north of the river (and north of the city).

All I can say is: "Yay for Holland"

ohhh ok.... I'm in the south too. Ga. It seems my state has a large number of people who prefer to attack and abuse/hurt/rape children instead of adults. Not a great deal of crime in the small town I live in, but it does happen.

All I can say is: "Yay for Holland"

Yes, the land where I keep "donating" bicycles.

I've wondered - I know they've legalized drugs. But it would be another good idea if they gave addicts an apartment, a monthly stipend, and free drugs so that I wouldn't keep losing bicycles every time I went there.

Which brings up my other suggestion: Tazer. No messy blood spills, no going through walls, bad guy subdued.
If he has any thick clothing on tazers don't do shit. There are quite a few leather jackets that will either stop a tazer dart or slow them enough to allow medium weight clothing to stop the darts. They are relatively inaccurate and most models are one-shots. There are a few that are 2. Shitty form of defense.

If that were true, then the people in Northern Virginia would be killing each other at a rate far, far higher than in the District of Columbia.

It's funny - even though rates of gun ownership are far, far lower in Washington, D.C., and guns are completely illegal in Washington, D.C., and even though it is now legal for any resident of Northern Virginia to carry a pistol in the open in public (and easy to get a concealed carry permit), and even though gun ownership rates are FAR higher in Northern Virginia than in Washington, D.C., there are easily ten times as many firearms deaths in Washington, D.C. over the past year than there were in Northern Virginia.

If you want to know just how bad that is, consider that about 250,000 people actually live in Washington, D.C., and over 5 million people live in Northern Virginia. In fact, we could isolate most of the gun violence in Washington, D.C. into two sections of the city - Ward 7 and Ward 8.

If the war on drugs was to stop now, and drugs were legal - most of the violence in the city (indeed, in the US) would stop - because most of the violence is the result of drug gang competition. And if the government subsidized drugs for people who couldn't afford drugs, the majority of street crime would go away.

So, do you want to keep spending 40 billion per year on the war on drugs, and watch people kill each other (if you can't stop the drugs, you certainly won't stop the guns from coming in), and pass laws that criminalize an additional sector of the population that has nothing to do with the problem, or do you want to legalize drugs and watch the killing STOP.

So true. The war on drugs is effectively one of the major killers in the US other than health issues and unfortunately it's not just limited to the states.

Just going to add, been readin the rest of your posts and you sure seem to live in a rough area or at least attract more than your share of it, surely it's not normal to be robbed or set upon that often?

Fancy moving somewhere safer or is the open carrying of weapons reassuring enough?

So true. The war on drugs is effectively one of the major killers in the US other than health issues and unfortunately it's not just limited to the states.

Just going to add, been readin the rest of your posts and you sure seem to live in a rough area or at least attract more than your share of it, surely it's not normal to be robbed or set upon that often?

Fancy moving somewhere safer or is the open carrying of weapons reassuring enough?

The murder rate is very low compared to some places, and the violent crime has gone way down - to record lows - as a result of the change in gun laws.

I feel safe here now. I have friends in Montgomery County who are moving to Virginia because the crime has increased so much.

Violent crime is more than murder.

So, to extend the analogy:

... pencil lead makes people miss spel words,
... gasoline makes people drive drunk,
... the food jumps off the spoon to make Rosie O'Donnel fat??? :confused:
More accurate than first poster at least.

Originally Posted by Whispering Legs
If that were true, then the people in Northern Virginia would be killing each other at a rate far, far higher than in the District of Columbia.

It's funny - even though rates of gun ownership are far, far lower in Washington, D.C., and guns are completely illegal in Washington, D.C., and even though it is now legal for any resident of Northern Virginia to carry a pistol in the open in public (and easy to get a concealed carry permit), and even though gun ownership rates are FAR higher in Northern Virginia than in Washington, D.C., there are easily ten times as many firearms deaths in Washington, D.C. over the past year than there were in Northern Virginia.

If you want to know just how bad that is, consider that about 250,000 people actually live in Washington, D.C., and over 5 million people live in Northern Virginia. In fact, we could isolate most of the gun violence in Washington, D.C. into two sections of the city - Ward 7 and Ward 8.

If the war on drugs was to stop now, and drugs were legal - most of the violence in the city (indeed, in the US) would stop - because most of the violence is the result of drug gang competition. And if the government subsidized drugs for people who couldn't afford drugs, the majority of street crime would go away.

So, do you want to keep spending 40 billion per year on the war on drugs, and watch people kill each other (if you can't stop the drugs, you certainly won't stop the guns from coming in), and pass laws that criminalize an additional sector of the population that has nothing to do with the problem, or do you want to legalize drugs and watch the killing STOP.


Your comparison is flawed. The only indicator of whether gun controll law decrease gun related death is by comparing the statistic from the SAME area before and after gun control law came into effect. If you can show that the number of gun related death in N. Virgian didn't change after the relaxed gun control law, then your argument has some merit. Otherwise, it's just useless info.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that murder rate in Washington DC wouldn't jump through the roof if gun controll was abolished. Yes, citizens will now be able to carry hand guns, but Criminals will simply use machine gun or rockets.

Your comparison is flawed. The only indicator of whether gun controll law decrease gun related death is by comparing the statistic from the SAME area before and after gun control law came into effect. If you can show that the number of gun related death in N. Virgian didn't change after the relaxed gun control law, then your argument has some merit. Otherwise, it's just useless info.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that murder rate in Washington DC wouldn't jump through the roof if gun controll was abolished. Yes, citizens will now be able to carry hand guns, but Criminals will simply use machine gun or rockets.

It dropped 33 percent in the same area in the first year after concealed carry was liberalized. It dropped another 12 percent after the introduction of legal open carry. That's Northern Virginia.

Crime in Montgomery County increased by identical percentages at the same time.

And no, criminals aren't carrying machineguns or rockets in Virginia. Since most criminals commit most violent crime without a gun, they go to Montgomery County, where they have a guaranteed source of unarmed victims.

True ... sometimes a pointed stick just doesn't do the trick.
But what about a piece of fresh fruit?????

But what about a piece of fresh fruit?????
We done fruit!

Nothing wrong with spoons, however, never never never lick a steak knife.

Guns? Sure ... no problem ... as long as we can agree that a gun serves absolutely no functional purpose other than to hurt/cause fear. That is their design and they do not multi-task.
Actually the function of a .270 or a 30odd6 is not to intimidate or to cause fear at all. It's to drop a food source at a legitimate and non-prey-spooking distance. If you do it right you aren't going to be trying to intimidate or make fearful your food source as the adrenaline-infusion of the meat makes it taste f*cking terrible.
So you might qualify the differnce between "personal handguns" whose purpose is obvious, as is any sawed-off shotgun, and any of the other firearm types.
As per multitasking, that's up to the user.

I want the sonic gun that makes them crap their pants by using high frequency sounds.
Ah yeah, the Brown-note Special. Didn't South Park have an episode about that? ;)

"Guns don't kill people...they just make it a hell of a lot easier."

hey, at the time it sucked, but now i have this really hard core story i can tell at parties! plus it motivated me to learn more self defense, which i am really really glad i did.
Good for you! More people should see it that way.
Btw, this expresses possibly ignorance on my part ... is that why you chose the moniker "Bottle"?

Guns? Sure ... no problem ... as long as we can agree that a gun serves absolutely no functional purpose other than to hurt/cause fear. That is their design and they do not multi-task.

Actually the function of a .270 or a 30odd6 is not to intimidate or to cause fear at all. It's to drop a food source at a legitimate and non-prey-spooking distance.

Straughn - it was stated that a gun has no purpose but to inflict harm or cause fear. That does not condradict the use of a gun to hunt. If those two purposes are inherent in all guns, you cannot say that there is a difference between a hunting rifle and a machine gun in terms of their purpose.

Straughn - it was stated that a gun has no purpose but to inflict harm or cause fear. That does not condradict the use of a gun to hunt.
Well, to harm is not the same as to intentially kill for food. That is more akin to maiming and suffering, and that's not what those calibers were designed for. I stand by that. Exactly as i said in my post, it was not designed for fear or harm by nature, it was designed for judicious use in procuring prey. It is still up to the user to determine any other use. Note that i specified that personal handgun use obviously doesn't include those rifles. In the same light, NOT ALL GUNS are created solely to harm or cause fear. Per your last sentence, it is ultimately the individual who decides the use and application of said gun. I'm sure there's some stats someone might spout here on just how many rifles are used in home burglaries and street altercations.
I do note though that the AR-15 specifically means Assault Rifle, and weapons that are set for automatic reload are specifically designed not for hunting game/prey as they are to kill one or more aggressors in a short amount of time. If i were to take up issue on any gray area of law and judgment that would be were i'd start. That's why the military uses them, you know.

I prefer keeping a big stick with a metal shod end that I keep by the door. I live in a city that has a higher per capita murder and rape rate than LA or New York. And probably meth capital of the world. As a matter of fact, our per capita muder rate is twice that of LA and the rate of rape is three times LA's rate (per capita). So much for the great morals of the bible belt.

Actually the function of a .270 or a 30odd6 is not to intimidate or to cause fear at all. It's to drop a food source at a legitimate and non-prey-spooking distance.

Shooting a deer or moose or whatever, even for food, does not defeat the "cause harm" purpose. It harms the deer to shoot it, even if that harm was necessary.

Besides ... a real man would chase down the deer and club it. If you can't do that, then take your lazy ass the grocery store.

Shooting a deer or moose or whatever, even for food, does not defeat the "cause harm" purpose. It harms the deer to shoot it, even if that harm was necessary.

Besides ... a real man would chase down the deer and club it. If you can't do that, then take your lazy ass the grocery store.

Funny, my dad says that anyone who says hunting has anything to do with sportsmanship should have to chase the deer down on foot and kill it with a steak knife. Now that gives the deer a sporting chance.

Ooooh, Etrusca is a Vietnam vet. That explains everything.

Ooooh, Etrusca is a Vietnam vet. That explains everything.


what does that mean exactly?

what does that mean exactly?

It explains why he is a "centrist" --- and by that I mean conservative.

The poor moron doesn't even realize who got him into the war and then cheated him out of health benefits.

It explains why he is a "centrist" --- and by that I mean conservative.

The poor moron doesn't even realize who got him into the war and then cheated him out of health benefits.

Hey Eutrusca is not a moron. You may not agree with his opinions, but that does NOT make him a moron. He is a very kind person. I suggest you get to know someone before you make statements about them.

Hey Eutrusca is not a moron. You may not agree with his opinions, but that does NOT make him a moron. He is a very kind person. I suggest you get to know someone before you make statements about them.

Though I agree Eutrusca isn't a moron, I must point out that being a very kind person does not preclude being a moron.

Fine, he's a nice person with bad intentions. And I'm a mean person with good intentions.

Fine, he's a nice person with bad intentions. And I'm a mean person with good intentions.

He's still a moron that lacks hindsight and foresight, as the only sight he has is of his rectum. He also likes to flamebait, so he had these comments coming.

Noone needs these 10 pages of crap. Draw your attention and hatred to me, so that I will rid you all of it and thrive upon it myself.



If you dont like this thread, then leave. There has been some very good information and suggestions for home defense against intruders on this thread.
I have never seen Eutrusca flamebait......unless you mean he posts questions that might actually prompt people to discuss their difference in opinions....which is what I thought, was also known as debate.

I have no hatred to focus on you or anyone else. I'm simply asking you to refrain from calling a very respectable person a "moron". Which if you want to get technical...would mean that YOU are flaming.

Though I agree Eutrusca isn't a moron, I must point out that being a very kind person does not preclude being a moron.


Youre exactly right.

My apologies. I often assume it's flamebaiting because no one in their right mind (well, actually, only those in the Right mind) would harbor such opinions about domestic affairs and foreign policy. But then, that's my own liberal libertarian bias.

So I'll shut up, and start a thread which I would deem flamebait, but really is an opinion of mine and legitamate quandry.

I also seem to have some past resentment toward Etrusca, but over what I know not. Forgive me; I'm inclined to hold grudges but am trying to break the habit. Seems I'm halfway there. :p

My apologies. I often assume it's flamebaiting because no one in their right mind (well, actually, only those in the Right mind) would harbor such opinions about domestic affairs and foreign policy. But then, that's my own liberal libertarian bias.

So I'll shut up, and start a thread which I would deem flamebait, but really is an opinion of mine and legitamate quandry.

I also seem to have some resentment toward Etrusca, but over what I know not. Forgive me; I'm inclined to hold grudges but am trying to break the habit. Seems I'm halfway there. :p

Thank you Saipea. If you get to know him, you'll find he is an extremely wonderful person. And I dont agree with all of his opinions either. But thats just part of self respect and respecting others....being able to agree to disagree. I appreciate your comments.

All I know about guns I learned from my dad, who was in the NYPD. He was shot, has used it and its lethal force on the job, and is familar with guns as a whole.
He doesn't own a handgun. He does have a long gun in the house, but refuses to allow a handgun in his home. Because they exist so little people who want to be big people can strap it on to their waist and act the part of the tough guy. That's just what I think, anyway.

Problem, Rosie O' Donnel doesnt use utensils, she puts her food into a blender, liquifies it drinks it.

However she may use a spoon or rubber scraper to scoop out the extra food drink stuck to the side of the blender.

You know, I'd like to have some kind of long range protection in case an intruder came into my house. But I dont like the idea of a gun in the house with children. I mean yes I know people have gun safes and store the ammo in a seperate place, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being able to grab the gun if an intruder breaks in. I mean they arent going to stand there and wait on you to run and get the bullets. I have a golf club under the bed that is kind of handy....but what if the intruder is carrying something more powerful than a 9 iron?

I agree that trying to load the gun while you're being attacked is a bad idea.

You can safely store a loaded gun in an Advanced Security Minivault (http://elitetacticalsources.com/client/details.php?pid=1093), Cannon Quickbox (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00069ZQRC/) or similar small combination box. I can recommend both brands but I like the first better.

With a bit of practice you can get the gun out in about a second without messing around with a key, but it is (almost) impossible for a child to get it. This is what many gun owners with kids do.

P.S. Great review of different combination boxes: http://www.ogo.org/keeppiece.html

A lot of times, when people break into houses, they're just looking for stuff to sell. Offer them your stuff. Just let them take it and tell them (don't ask them) not to hurt you. "I have children. You can have whatever you want from the house, but do not hurt me or them." said in a calm and confident manner will work quite effectively.

Sorry, but I have just a bit of a problem with that suggestion. They go into my home uninvited and threaten me and I should *offer them my stuff*? Hell no.

I don't care about the stuff, I donate lots of stuff I don't need every year. I care about the threat.

People who would break into someone's house often rely on the resident of the house to be afraid. Don't be afraid. At least, do not let it show. Even if they're waving a gun in your face, do not show one second of fear.

I agree with this, but I would take it a bit further. Make *them* afraid of you. The sound of a pump-action shotgun in the dark works pretty well.

Offer, however, to the burglar the option of leaving now without consequences.

Yes, if they are unarmed, I would do so. If they are armed, what I do will depend on the circumstances, but I will not endanger myself or my family unnecessarily.

There is a big problem with any defensive response to a burglary... whether the burglar gets away, or is arrested, or killed, they and/or their friends know who you are and where you live. You probably have to move to avoid revenge attacks, which is a huge pain in the neck.

Funny, my dad says that anyone who says hunting has anything to do with sportsmanship should have to chase the deer down on foot and kill it with a steak knife. Now that gives the deer a sporting chance.
Shows what little your dad knows of sports.

Sorry, but I have just a bit of a problem with that suggestion. They go into my home uninvited and threaten me and I should *offer them my stuff*? Hell no.

I don't care about the stuff, I donate lots of stuff I don't need every year. I care about the threat.



I agree with this, but I would take it a bit further. Make *them* afraid of you. The sound of a pump-action shotgun in the dark works pretty well.



Yes, if they are unarmed, I would do so. If they are armed, what I do will depend on the circumstances, but I will not endanger myself or my family unnecessarily.

There is a big problem with any defensive response to a burglary... whether the burglar gets away, or is arrested, or killed, they and/or their friends know who you are and where you live. You probably have to move to avoid revenge attacks, which is a huge pain in the neck.

I own everything in my house and use it as I please. That would include the life of a trespasser. If I please to end it I have to trouble doing so, there is even a small chance I will offer them something - the chance to run like hell. I may use a gun, or a knife, though a baseball bat is what I keep at the ready. Maybe the trespasser means no ill will, but then, I have no way to know that and with my children there I can leave nothing to chance.

Most thieves are alone or in small groups. They are not brave enough to face you, so revenge is unlikely from their crowd. They are often strung out dope (dangerous) and desperate. It is highly unlikely they are just normal folks trying to 'get by' with the vast amount of social services today. they are druggies or kids thrill seeking, neither one deserves any quarters.

I agree with this, but I would take it a bit further. Make *them* afraid of you. The sound of a pump-action shotgun in the dark works pretty well.


This is very, very, very true. :D

A nice "k-chink chunk sheenk" (actual sound of a compact grip Mossberg 590A1 #51683) is often followed by the sound of someone wetting themselves.

http://www.unlc.biz/images/51683.jpg

It was the nicest weapon I have ever owned. However, I devoted no less than 10 hours per week to it at the range and had training and safety certification from TDPS (Texas Department of Public Safety). Only once did I ever have to use it in a "situation". My wife saw a man peeking in our window at an apartment in Houston and I went outside, weapon ready, to investigate while she called the police. The man turned out to be a harmless homeless man who wasn't doing anything, so we gave him some food and he was gone by the time the police arrived.

I sold it when my first child was born.

See? Some of us lefty liberal hippy types have no opposition to firearms. We just ask that people get trained to use said weapon and devote as much time as possible to practice with the weapon. If you're a "pull the trigger then ask questions" or "when in doubt, empty the clip" type, you not only should not be allowed to own a firearm, but should be under the supervision of a mental health professional.

KERUVALIA I FOUND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! :fluffle:

KERUVALIA I FOUND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! :fluffle:

I didn't know you were looking. You could have TG'd me. :D

I have been super busy and stuff, and so i only have been on for a little bit. I got a new job starting on march 1st...so i wont get to come on here hardly at all anymore!!! :(

This is very, very, very true. :D

A nice "k-chink chunk sheenk" (actual sound of a compact grip Mossberg 590A1 #51683) is often followed by the sound of someone wetting themselves.

http://www.unlc.biz/images/51683.jpg

It was the nicest weapon I have ever owned. However, I devoted no less than 10 hours per week to it at the range and had training and safety certification from TDPS (Texas Department of Public Safety). Only once did I ever have to use it in a "situation". My wife saw a man peeking in our window at an apartment in Houston and I went outside, weapon ready, to investigate while she called the police. The man turned out to be a harmless homeless man who wasn't doing anything, so we gave him some food and he was gone by the time the police arrived.

I sold it when my first child was born.

See? Some of us lefty liberal hippy types have no opposition to firearms. We just ask that people get trained to use said weapon and devote as much time as possible to practice with the weapon. If you're a "pull the trigger then ask questions" or "when in doubt, empty the clip" type, you not only should not be allowed to own a firearm, but should be under the supervision of a mental health professional.

I agree w/ everything you said up until you sold the shotgun. Having kids has given me an even more incentive to protect my family w/ all my abilities. They are too little (18m) to be able to get to them now but I will soon be teaching them recognition, safety, and respect for firearms, I plan on passing some of my fathers down to them.

The Mossberg is a fantastic home-defense weapon. Unfortunately a certain group of senators have labeled it an "assault weapon" and want it banned because of that pistol grip.

I have been super busy and stuff, and so i only have been on for a little bit. I got a new job starting on march 1st...so i wont get to come on here hardly at all anymore!!! :(


First: Congrats on the new job! Whatcha gonna be doin'?

Now ...

:eek: :eek: :eek: You better stay in touch! You can even email me if you like ... fishpaw@gmail.com

Don't be too much of a stranger. I'll miss ya. :fluffle: :fluffle:

First: Congrats on the new job! Whatcha gonna be doin'?

Now ...

:eek: :eek: :eek: You better stay in touch! You can even email me if you like ... fishpaw@gmail.com

Don't be too much of a stranger. I'll miss ya. :fluffle: :fluffle:


I am going to work in the payroll department at Regis Corporate. :) I will definitely keep in touch. :fluffle:

Shooting a deer or moose or whatever, even for food, does not defeat the "cause harm" purpose. It harms the deer to shoot it, even if that harm was necessary.

Besides ... a real man would chase down the deer and club it. If you can't do that, then take your lazy ass the grocery store.

Isn't it lazier to go to the grocery store than to wake up early, shoot the deer, gut it, skin it and freeze it? Not to mention more expensive(in the long run of course)?

I agree w/ everything you said up until you sold the shotgun. Having kids has given me an even more incentive to protect my family w/ all my abilities. They are too little (18m) to be able to get to them now but I will soon be teaching them recognition, safety, and respect for firearms, I plan on passing some of my fathers down to them.

Oh, and I will as well, but there are just some things that a young child isn't prepared for. If I'm not going to teach a 5 year old child how to play guitar, I'm certainly not going to put a weapon in their hands.

I firmly believe that educating a child is important, but actual use/ownership of a firearm should wait until the child is at least 15-16.

The Mossberg is a fantastic home-defense weapon. Unfortunately a certain group of senators have labeled it an "assault weapon" and want it banned because of that pistol grip.

:rolleyes: Even I say to that "FOOLS!"

Believe me, not all Dems are "guns are teh evil sux0rs" screamers. Just look at Howard Dean (a political idol of mine right up there with Che Guevara - who also believed in firearms).

Isn't it lazier to go to the grocery store than to wake up early, shoot the deer, gut it, skin it and freeze it? Not to mention more expensive(in the long run of course)?

Maybe ... depends on if you drive or walk to the grocery store. :D

I am going to work in the payroll department at Regis Corporate. :) I will definitely keep in touch. :fluffle:

Groovy! Payroll, eh? Bet that'll be a stimulating and exciting job. (heh) A paycheck is always a nice thing to get.

You can save up to come visit me in Houston. :D :D

These lessons in self defense (esp the Maglite) remind me of what happened to a few students living nearby myself.

They came in lateish one saturday night and slammed the door behind them, but the door didn't shut and was slightly open. On the sunday morning (in the middle of winter so it was till dark), an opportunist burgler came in and started to remove their stuff.

Needless to say the students heard him, and one being a medieval re-enactor, took down his (blunt) hand and a half sword off his shelf, and met his mate who was carrying a hefty Maglite and waited for the intruder to come upstairs. As the intruder did so, they shouted a warning not to come any further (by this time the third student had phoned the police), but the intruder drew a knife, and ran at them.

(This was all in the local paper, the next bit i heard from the student who had phoned the police)

The burglar ran at and tried to stab the guy with the maglite, who struck him over the head, whilst the guy with the blunt sword hit him with the flat of the blade on the back.

The burglar was unconcious due to being hit by the mag lite and was still so when the police arrived.

And despite what many people think of the british police and justice system, the students were commended for their appropriate use of force, as all the burglar got was a sore head and a sentance :D


Having done re-enactment myself I know a few stories like that. Most involved less fortunate crooks who tried to mug or otherwise rob people with sharp "toys". Pulling a knife on a near olympic caliber fencer (was an alternate to the US team, IIRC) carrying a real rapier is a bad idea.

and weapons that are set for automatic reload are specifically designed not for hunting game/prey as they are to kill one or more aggressors in a short amount of time. If i were to take up issue on any gray area of law and judgment that would be were i'd start. That's why the military uses them, you know.

You've never hunted have you? The ability to get a second shot off quickly is also important in hunting. The reduced recoil of a semi-auto is also a plus, especially for smaller people.


Funny, my dad says that anyone who says hunting has anything to do with sportsmanship should have to chase the deer down on foot and kill it with a steak knife. Now that gives the deer a sporting chance.

Shows what little your dad knows of sports.


Yep. Another non-hunter.

You've never hunted have you? The ability to get a second shot off quickly is also important in hunting. The reduced recoil of a semi-auto is also a plus, especially for smaller people.


Yes i have. I'm under the impression however you haven't hunted WITHOUT a semiautomatic. Why don't you read the post this concerns before posting yourself, then you might realize what i was talking about.

Shows what little your dad knows of sports.

Actually, he did hunt when he was young. You can hardly grow up in south Texas without being taught to hunt. He decided in his late teens it was wrong. He's hardly some wussy city boy with a delicate constitution. He was on the football team and served in Korea. He also boxed golden glove. :rolleyes:

It's not an either/or proposition. I would prefer they legalize guns, continue to make drugs illegal, and raise the penalties for illegal use of both! :)


The penalties for drugs cant get much higher. Mandatory minimum sentances mean that there are many people with much longer sentances than murders, and all they did was have sale weight of some drugs.

Drug use is stupid, but the war on drugs is even dumber. It has turned a large number of otherwise productive people into ward of the state for life. The cost of drug illegality far outweigh any benefits it might confer.

I edit it some links as to the costs.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2899

I'm not sure. Anyone else know how this system works???

The most common ones are some sort of radio signal sent from the either the wrist or finger of the person. Something like a watch or ring that broadcast in a very limitted range.

Yes i have. I'm under the impression however you haven't hunted WITHOUT a semiautomatic. Why don't you read the post this concerns before posting yourself, then you might realize what i was talking about.

I'm guessing that you're from the states? Very different take on hunting over there it would seem. IMO "you haven't hunted without a semi-automatic" is bs macho posturing. I'm willing to admit that americans probably see it differently though, why that is, I don't know.

I was taught to hunt by my grandfather, a gamekeeper on a very large estate in Ireland, then further by my father and a Jagermeister and others in Germany and elsewhere. A good hunter kills with one shot was always the rule, you would not generally have been allowed on a hunt with them if you intended to use a semi-automatic, more likely you'd have been offered an alternative weapon after a long talking too. Sure, sometimes a second shot is needed, but you should be able to reload quick enough or track the animal further.

My grandfathers line was semi-automatics are for hunting people, not animals, which you need the sanction of your government for. Semi-automatics encourage lazy practises and bad kills. The only people who ever tested this rule on hunts hosted by him were visiting Saudis and Americans, who'd occasionally turn up with something ludicrously innappropriate, which they were then never allowed to use, other than on the target range.

" Weapons aren't evil, people are!"

That's pretty random, I can't think of a way to make lasers do anything remotely like that. With sound it would be really easy, you just build a bunch of waves inside the gun all in phase and then release them all at once and it makes a huge noise and knocks down a wall. If you were to do the same thing wiht lasers it would just make a tiny whole through everything you pointed it at, and I mean everything.

wave particle theory of light.

I'm guessing that you're from the states? Very different take on hunting over there it would seem. IMO "you haven't hunted without a semi-automatic" is bs macho posturing. I'm willing to admit that americans probably see it differently though, why that is, I don't know.

I was taught to hunt by my grandfather, a gamekeeper on a very large estate in Ireland, then further by my father and a Jagermeister and others in Germany and elsewhere. A good hunter kills with one shot was always the rule, you would not generally have been allowed on a hunt with them if you intended to use a semi-automatic, more likely you'd have been offered an alternative weapon after a long talking too. Sure, sometimes a second shot is needed, but you should be able to reload quick enough or track the animal further.

My grandfathers line was semi-automatics are for hunting people, not animals, which you need the sanction of your government for. Semi-automatics encourage lazy practises and bad kills. The only people who ever tested this rule on hunts hosted by him were visiting Saudis and Americans, who'd occasionally turn up with something ludicrously innappropriate, which they were then never allowed to use, other than on the target range.
Yep i'm american, from the US, not middle or latin or south.
I posted that BECAUSE of the bs macho posturing. Did you read that feller's post? I agree that it's as good as your first best shot, and that person was convinced of the integrity of the second. Given loading time and not shifting your sight, taking a bolt action on a hunt would require obviously a better skill with one shot, which is how i was raised. So i agree with you there. By the same token, though, i'm talking a LONG range and i also am not desperate for food so as the hunt was concerned it was disciplined instead of the just the intent of kill for taking. I of course agree with your second and third paragraphs here.
I may have to agree with you that some (hopefully not the majority) of americans don't see the hunt in the same fashion that i (and apparently you) do but i have to my unfortune encountered many people who would be better suited to arrange their egos and faculty with, as posted earlier, a pointed stick versus their prey.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Shooting a deer or moose or whatever, even for food, does not defeat the "cause harm" purpose. It harms the deer to shoot it, even if that harm was necessary.

Besides ... a real man would chase down the deer and club it. If you can't do that, then take your lazy ass the grocery store.
Note, manhood here isn't the issue.
Note, not once did i mention any issue of "sport".
I do actually agree with you that the truest sense of sport would mean relatively equal footing with the prey.
To be fair, i concede that any prey anywhere by nature of being prey, is in a relationship where the predator intends harm for it, compared to its life without the predator's intervention. I can find quite a few examples of that in a near myriad other devices.

... pencils miss spel words,
... cars make people drive drunk,
... spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat! :D



lol

all the other things on your list do something good too. That'sa thing guns do not. Not one good thing guns do can make up to all the bad things the also do.

Funny, my dad says that anyone who says hunting has anything to do with sportsmanship should have to chase the deer down on foot and kill it with a steak knife. Now that gives the deer a sporting chance.
;)
See above ....

without a pencil, you could still mis-spell words


without the drink you couldn't do anything drunk


she made herself fat & didn't need a spoon

but guns... are there many things as lethal? without a gun can you kill another so easily? no. by extention, the gun is the problem.

sorry if that made no sense - my brain is weird today... :confused: and i am obviously unable to take a joke today... :headbang:



sure a composite bow

You know, I'd like to have some kind of long range protection in case an intruder came into my house. But I dont like the idea of a gun in the house with children. I mean yes I know people have gun safes and store the ammo in a seperate place, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being able to grab the gun if an intruder breaks in. I mean they arent going to stand there and wait on you to run and get the bullets. I have a golf club under the bed that is kind of handy....but what if the intruder is carrying something more powerful than a 9 iron?

They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.

the problem isnt where we should hide guns , its why we should have to?

yes because children might play with them , thats because they dont know anything.It's a fact , when children are raised around them they dont mess around.

please someone get me an article from the 17 or 18 hundreds , about some kid blowing off his head

Which brings up my other suggestion: Tazer. No messy blood spills, no going through walls, bad guy subdued.[/QUOTE]

its not ranged

all the other things on your list do something good too. That'sa thing guns do not. Not one good thing guns do can make up to all the bad things the also do.

this isnt 20 years ago other wise id reply , please say that when the commis come :mp5:

its not ranged
Taser do have limited range. At least the needle+cable versions. If you need a weapon with a larger range to defend yourself you a) arent really in imminent danger or b) are threatened at gun point, in which case a gun on your side wont help you a bit.

I posted that BECAUSE of the bs macho posturing. Did you read that feller's post? I agree that it's as good as your first best shot, and that person was convinced of the integrity of the second.

...Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Soz, I went back and read through the earlier posts properly and I see that it wasn't you bringing the bs posturing. I jumped too quickly, part of the problem with speed reading threads at work... ;)

all the other things on your list do something good too. That'sa thing guns do not. Not one good thing guns do can make up to all the bad things the also do.

Oh, like stopping and preventing 2.5 million violent crimes per year without a shot being fired?

I suppose that you would rather that all those rapes, robberies, and assaults take place instead?

You're saying that a raped woman is morally superior to a dead rapist (or even superior to a rapist scared away by a woman with a gun)?

Surely guns must kill people, or the army wouldn't waste all that money on them.

I haven't read throught this entire thread, and am probably not going to, as i just woke up, but I thought I'd relate this story.
My friend Mike and myself were sitting in his car, discussing just this topic. i was suddenly hit by a revelation and asked,"Wait, if guns don't kill people, people kill people, then wouldn't a robot with a gun be a person if it killed me?" He gave me a look of utter awe and worship, and in that moment, I knew, I had my first idolitrous disciple. There would be many more. :D

guns dont kill people, bullets kill people. a gun is not very lethal unless there is A: bullets in it's chamber. B: a bayonet at the end. C: or if you beat someone to death with it. and god damn rosie odonell is fat. (fuckin spoons)

Surely guns must kill people, or the army wouldn't waste all that money on them.

Guns do other things as well. It's a poor tool that does only one thing.

Statistics in my area (and my interviews with local felons) show that just the idea that civilians in my area now carry concealed weapons, and some carry openly, scares felons from our jurisdiction.

We have much less violent crime than our neighboring jurisdictions (including those just as affluent as ours).

We didn't have a storm of gunplay in our streets, either.

So we might say that guns scare criminals away. Without firing a shot.

Actually, he did hunt when he was young. You can hardly grow up in south Texas without being taught to hunt. He decided in his late teens it was wrong. He's hardly some wussy city boy with a delicate constitution. He was on the football team and served in Korea. He also boxed golden glove. :rolleyes:
ROFLMAO!


OH yeah! Well my dad can beat up your dad! So Nyea!

Taser do have limited range. At least the needle+cable versions. If you need a weapon with a larger range to defend yourself you a) arent really in imminent danger or b) are threatened at gun point, in which case a gun on your side wont help you a bit.

Scenario:

You miss with the first (only) tazer shot. I'd much rather have the extra capability of having at least one more go at it--since my life would be on the line.

Oh, like stopping and preventing 2.5 million violent crimes per year without a shot being fired?


Good point. :)

Taser do have limited range. At least the needle+cable versions. If you need a weapon with a larger range to defend yourself you a) arent really in imminent danger or b) are threatened at gun point, in which case a gun on your side wont help you a bit.

A gun has an advantage that a Taser does not.
If you are an unarmed violent criminal (and most in the US do not use a weapon when committing a violent crime), and I pull the gun, I do not have to shoot you.

But you will probably leave. This happens millions of times per year in the US.

I'm not sure that a Taser has any deterrent effect. Even if the probes hit, it is not always effective.

Also, statistics on close combat show that even if someone has a gun out and is pointing it at you, if you have a proper holster, you still have a 50 percent chance of beating the person to the first shot if you do not have the gun out already. This is because if someone is busy talking to you, they are not immediately ready to kill you - and you can take advantage of the reaction time.

The gun has been quite effective for me - twice. Without firing a shot.

Just the fact that felons know that civilians in Northern Virginia may be walking around armed - legally, has been sufficient to lower the violent crime rate here by 33 percent in the first year. Another 12 percent this year.

And it's what felons talk about here. It's too dangerous to personally confront someone in order to commit a crime.

A gun has an advantage that a Taser does not.


Note to self...gun has advantage, but it's more fun with a sling shot from point blank range...least that's how we do it here...cost less than ammo or fancy tasers..Would like to hit somebody in the sack with a taser one time though...Abu Gharib ;)

ROFLMAO!


OH yeah! Well my dad can beat up your dad! So Nyea!

Probably, my dads 65 yo. :p

Nothing wrong with spoons, however, never never never lick a steak knife.

Guns? Sure ... no problem ... as long as we can agree that a gun serves absolutely no functional purpose other than to hurt/cause fear. That is their design and they do not multi-task.
Even target weapons, antiques, and museum pieces?

But that's not the point. This sad fact of the matter is that in this world it is far too frequently necessary for good, law-abiding people to use lethal force or the threat of same from criminals. Despite the protestations of the liberal left, disarming law-abiding innocents will only exacerabate the situation, not mitigate it.

but guns... are there many things as lethal? without a gun can you kill another so easily? no. by extention, the gun is the problem.

An automobile is far and away a more lethal device than a handgun. So is a knife in the proper hands.

The gun is not the problem. The problem lies in the attitudes of those who would misuse firearms. They should be the targets of law enforcement and legislation, not law-abiding innocents.

You know, I'd like to have some kind of long range protection in case an intruder came into my house. But I dont like the idea of a gun in the house with children. I mean yes I know people have gun safes and store the ammo in a seperate place, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being able to grab the gun if an intruder breaks in.

Exactly. You can't childproof guns. You can, however, gunproof children.


They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.
I think you've been watching a little too much sci fi. :)

Even if you've taken every step to insure your children will never get to it, you could miss an intruder and send a bullet right through the wall and into your child's skull.

Are you using a .45 handgun or a .30-06 rifle?


If someone breaks in, grab your kids and get out. Let them take what they want. It is, after all, just stuff. Replaceable material possessions should never be valued over life.

You're free to make that choice. However, I will never abandon my home out of fear.


Which brings up my other suggestion: Tazer. No messy blood spills, no going through walls, bad guy subdued.
You have a single shot. The range is 21 feet. It is not effective against heavily-clothed individuals.

Originally Posted by Peechland
They should make a laser beam gun type thingy that you could point at an intruder and it freezes them in a coating of ice or something.


I think you've been watching a little too much sci fi. :)

No, he's good......I've got those..call me dude

I think land mines should be legalised I mean what it a group of people try to go on my property? Or if I'm not in?

And rocket launchers what if a group of people in an armored car who want to kill my familly come?

And stealth bombers what if a whole city wants to kill all my extended family?

And nuclear bombs what if a whole nation of people want to come and rape and kill all my extended family?
We're trying to have an intelligent discussion, and you're being absolutely rediculous. Please stop.

I'm not sure. Anyone else know how this system works???
Fingerprint identification (on the grip, obviously, not the trigger). Another method is to place a transponder chip in a device such as a watch or key fob.

The ultimate safety solution, of course, is to carry your sidearm 24/7, and keep your other guns locked in a storage cabinet with fingerprint ID security. The NRA sells them through their website. The advantage here is that if for whatever reason the ID reader fails, you can, as a last resort, break open the cabinet.

Breaking open a gun is rarely a good idea. ;)

In all honesty, I have no idea. A lot of times, when people break into houses, they're just looking for stuff to sell. Offer them your stuff. Just let them take it and tell them (don't ask them) not to hurt you. "I have children. You can have whatever you want from the house, but do not hurt me or them." said in a calm and confident manner will work quite effectively. People who would break into someone's house often rely on the resident of the house to be afraid.

Don't be afraid. At least, do not let it show. Even if they're waving a gun in your face, do not show one second of fear. If they fire the gun, chances are they have no training and will either miss you completely (many people are often surprised just how hard it is to actually shoot someone) or not hit anything vital. So do not be afraid. Make constant mental notes and burn them into your memory for later discussion with the police.

Offer, however, to the burglar the option of leaving now without consequences. A good amount of the time, burglars are shocked to find you home as these people are cowards and tend to only break into unoccupied homes. He/She will be just as afraid as you are, but do not lose control for one second.

Make sure your children know how to dial 911 and can give your name and address over the phone. Any child over 5 should be able to do this. You can practice with an unplugged telephone. I've seen many stories of an adult keeping a would-be burglar occupied while one of their children sneaks to a phone and calls 911. I find it sadly disturbing that we live in a time where such skills are necessary, but I don't see that changing any time soon.

Anyway ... guess I've babbled on enough about this.
Unfortunately, DOJ statistics show that a person, ESPECIALLY a woman, is more likely to escape a dangerous situation by resisting (especially with a firearm) than complying.

And what are you going to do if the assailant attempts to take you to a secondary crime scene?

No offense, but I feel sad that you live somewhere that you honestly think you need to prepare for something like this...

It doesn't matter where you live. Failing to prepare for unexpected scenarios is nothing short of utter foolishness.

Ah ... well ... I wouldn't want to kill someone unless I felt I was in mortal danger. If all he wants is my TV, he can have it. I'm not going to kill someone over a TV.
If you were armed with a handgun, as opposed to an aluminum flashlight, I rather suspect his interest in your television set would rapidly diminish. ;)

I just have a problem with guns. The only reason I can see that people are attracted to them is as a tool of fear and an instrument of death, which I guess gives an adrenaline rush to some people. I think those are really base reasons.
I wasn't aware you were a psychiatrist.

And gun ownership rates are higher in Canada than they are in the US,
No, they are not.

All I can say is: "Yay for Holland"
The Netherlands has more than twice the murder rate of the United States.

SOURCE: Interpol crime statistics.

I do note though that the AR-15 specifically means Assault Rifle,

The 'AR' in AR-15 stands for 'ArmaLite Rifle'. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

and weapons that are set for automatic reload are specifically designed not for hunting game/prey as they are to kill one or more aggressors in a short amount of time.

Most hunting rifles are semiautomatic, as are all target arms (of which the AR-15 is one of the most popular).

Because they exist so little people who want to be big people can strap it on to their waist and act the part of the tough guy. That's just what I think, anyway.
Floridians with concealed carry liscences commit violent criminal offences at a rate nearly 1/1000th that of the average Floridian. CCW holders are among the brighest, most stable, trustworthiest, and law-abiding individuals in the United States.

Trust me: I know a lot of them. They probably spend as much time studying the law and discussing the legal ramifications of using lethal force as they do practise shooting.

Believe me, not all Dems are "guns are teh evil sux0rs" screamers. Just look at Howard Dean (a political idol of mine right up there with Che Guevara - who also believed in firearms).
A much better example would have been our friend Sen. Miller (D-GA). Dean supported the AWB.

... pencils miss spel words,
... cars make people drive drunk,
... spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat! :D

Guns can fire accidentaly. I've never heard of cars accidentally driving with drunks inside of them ore spoons accidentaly putting food into Rosie's mouth. And are you joking around with this thread or what? I can't tell. Either way, I still like it.

all the other things on your list do something good too. That'sa thing guns do not. Not one good thing guns do can make up to all the bad things the also do.
Guns don't "do" anything. People do, and firearms are far more frequently used for law-abiding purposes than otherwise.

If you need a weapon with a larger range to defend yourself you a) arent really in imminent danger or b) .
A person with a knife 22 feet away from you isn't an imminent threat? Multiple attackers at close range aren't an imminent threat?

Guns can fire accidentaly. I've never heard of cars accidentally driving with drunks inside of them ore spoons accidentaly putting food into Rosie's mouth. And are you joking around with this thread or what? I can't tell. Either way, I still like it.
Firearm accidents have been declining for nearly a century.

Guns can fire accidentaly. I've never heard of cars accidentally driving with drunks inside of them ore spoons accidentaly putting food into Rosie's mouth. And are you joking around with this thread or what? I can't tell. Either way, I still like it.

The only way a gun "accidentally" fires is if someone extremely hits it or pulls the trigger. They don't just randomly start firing. There has to be a person doing it.

"No person in the history of man has ever been injured by a gun or knife except through carelessness or direct human intent."

-- Tom Clancy

The only way a gun "accidentally" fires is if someone extremely hits it or pulls the trigger. They don't just randomly start firing. There has to be a person doing it.
actually it's a fairly common problem in automatic weapons that the barrel becomes hot enough to fire the round on it's own after extended use. Of course, if you're around when people are extensively using automatic weapons, then you have worse issues than possible accidental firing. Quite possibly, you're more ventilated than is healthy.

actually it's a fairly common problem in automatic weapons that the barrel becomes hot enough to fire the round on it's own after extended use. Of course, if you're around when people are extensively using automatic weapons, then you have worse issues than possible accidental firing. Quite possibly, you're more ventilated than is healthy.

I would love to hear that twinkie defense in court. "Your honor, I had fired so many times that the barrel was red hot, causing the gun to discharge and hitting the store owner. It wasn't my fault, it was the guns'". :)

I would love to hear that twinkie defense in court. "Your honor, I had fired so many times that the barrel was red hot, causing the gun to discharge and hitting the store owner. It wasn't my fault, it was the guns'". :)
hah.
actually, and i'm taking your joke seriously here, that's felony murder. An unintentional death as a result of a felony unrelated to homicide. Like, if the manager of the bank you're robbing has a heart attack.

Huh. I guess i killed the mood. I'll jsut say this. If you are gonna have a self defense gun, then i don't see any sense in doin anything other than one of these two. A.) get a shotgun. the beauty of a shotgun is that they are easy to get, ammo is cheap and plentiful, but you don't even need to keep it loaded if you don't want to. If someone is in your house at night, all you really need to do is pump it. That sound hit's their ears, and they will leave. b.) If you don't want a shotgun for any of the good reasons not to have one, then get a snub nose .38 revolver. again, easy to find, ammo plentiful and cheap. but better still, you can obtain shotgun rounds for a 38. the nice thing about pellets, is that a wall will most likely stop them, something that cannot be said about a supersonic 9mm. something that cannot be said about any number of big bore hunting rifles. But i digress. guns can be a neccessary evil, but irresonsible use kills more people than i would like to think about.

Huh. I guess i killed the mood. I'll jsut say this. If you are gonna have a self defense gun, then i don't see any sense in doin anything other than one of these two.

The day I take advice on this subject is the day I accept religious advice from an athiest.

ammo is cheap

No it isn't. 12 gague rounds are quite pricey.

and plentiful, but you don't even need to keep it loaded if you don't want to. If someone is in your house at night, all you really need to do is pump it. That sound hit's their ears, and they will leave.

Rounds in the magazine == loaded. Pumping a shotgun gives away your position and may well get yourself killed. It is not an option with a semiautomatic shotgun. That the racking of a shotgun scares off criminals is, frankly, a myth.

Many myths are around about shotguns. "The racking sound of a shotgun sends thugs on the run," is a common one. NONSENSE! Even gunshots seldom impress the thugs



b.) If you don't want a shotgun for any of the good reasons not to have one, then get a snub nose .38 revolver. again, easy to find, ammo plentiful and cheap. but better still, you can obtain shotgun rounds for a 38.

"Shotgun" rounds are available for a variety of centrefire pistol calibres. The .38 revolver is entirely unsuited for this task. It is grossly innacurate and underpowered compared to a .45ACP, and the magazine capacity is dismal.

the nice thing about pellets, is that a wall will most likely stop them,

So will heavy clothing. These rounds are not designed for self-defense, and are wholey unsuited to that purpose. They were designed to kill snakes, not goblins.

guns can be a neccessary evil,.
Necessary? Yes. Evil? Muammar Ghadaffi is evil. Hitler was evil. Idi Amin was evil. Pol Pot was evil. Firearms are inanimate objects, they are neither "good" (though they are good to have), nor "evil," anymore than matches, watches, fire extinguishers, flares or throw rugs are.

The day I take advice on this subject is the day I accept religious advice from an athiest.

No it isn't. 12 gague rounds are quite pricey.

Rounds in the magazine == loaded. Pumping a shotgun gives away your position and may well get yourself killed. It is not an option with a semiautomatic shotgun. That the racking of a shotgun scares off criminals is, frankly, a myth.




"Shotgun" rounds are available for a variety of centrefire pistol calibres. The .38 revolver is entirely unsuited for this task. It is grossly innacurate and underpowered compared to a .45ACP, and the magazine capacity is dismal.

So will heavy clothing. These rounds are not designed for self-defense, and are wholey unsuited to that purpose. They were designed to kill snakes, not goblins.

Necessary? Yes. Evil? Muammar Ghadaffi is evil. Hitler was evil. Idi Amin was evil. Pol Pot was evil. Firearms are inanimate objects, they are neither "good" (though they are good to have), nor "evil," anymore than matches, watches, fire extinguishers, flares or throw rugs are.

well, i stand corrected. perhaps next itme i shall go beyond my crazy gun toting grandfather for information. i apologize for a bump gone horribly wrong.

well, i stand corrected. perhaps next itme i shall go beyond my crazy gun toting grandfather for information. i apologize for a bump gone horribly wrong.
It happens. :)

No it isn't. 12 gague rounds are quite pricey.



Where do you get yours from? A box of Remington 7 1/2 shot(100 rounds) costs less than $15 at Wal-mart.

Where do you get yours from? A box of Remington 7 1/2 shot(100 rounds) costs less than $15 at Wal-mart.
everythings cheap at walmart, but i wasn't going to argue that point. i bought a two pound bag of cereal for $3.38 JUST BECAUSE I COULD.

Where do you get yours from? A box of Remington 7 1/2 shot(100 rounds) costs less than $15 at Wal-mart.
And # 7 1/2 shot is an entirely unsatisfactory self-defense round. Remington 12 ga. 00 buckshot costs $135 for 250 rounds (54cpr) at Midway USA. Slugs are in the 75 cent range.

And # 7 1/2 shot is an entirely unsatisfactory self-defense round. Remington 12 ga. 00 buckshot costs $135 for 250 rounds (54cpr) at Midway USA. Slugs are in the 75 cent range.
just out of curiosity, where do you stand on non-lethal projectiles, such as rocksalt?

just out of curiosity, where do you stand on non-lethal projectiles, such as rocksalt?
I would never bother with them. If a mere presence of a shotgun is not sufficient to deter an intruder, deadly force will most likely be required.

And # 7 1/2 shot is an entirely unsatisfactory self-defense round. Remington 12 ga. 00 buckshot costs $135 for 250 rounds (54cpr) at Midway USA. Slugs are in the 75 cent range.

True, but you don't use the good stuff for practice.

True, but you don't use the good stuff for practice.
Fair point.

And # 7 1/2 shot is an entirely unsatisfactory self-defense round. Remington 12 ga. 00 buckshot costs $135 for 250 rounds (54cpr) at Midway USA. Slugs are in the 75 cent range.
bird shot is fine for home defense, it'll turn an intruders chest into mass of shredded goo and loose most of its force in the couple of layers of drywall that make up interior walls thus preventing you from turning your loved ones into collateral damage. buck shot or slugs will certainly remain dangerous through any interior walls and might still kill your neighbor threw a couple of exterior ones.

just out of curiosity, where do you stand on non-lethal projectiles, such as rocksalt?
rocksalt at close range might be more lethal than you would suppose.

bird shot is fine for home defense, it'll turn an intruders chest into mass of shredded goo and loose most of its force in the couple of layers of drywall that make up interior walls thus preventing you from turning your loved ones into collateral damage. buck shot or slugs will certainly remain dangerous through any interior walls and might still kill your neighbor threw a couple of exterior ones.
Bird shot simply does not penetrate sufficiently to make an adequate self-defense round. Pentetration through multiple walls is a concern only in the case of a miss.

Bird shot simply does not penetrate sufficiently to make an adequate self-defense round. Pentetration through multiple walls is a concern only in the case of a miss.
which under the stress of an actual home invasion is a real possibility. certainly try to avoid using a deer rifle you could hit your target square in the chest at that range and still kill someone down the block.

rocksalt at close range might be more lethal than you would suppose.
i suppose it would be. i guess jsut dissolving after entry doesn't lessent he entry wound, though it does aid in cauterizing it a little.

Are you using a .45 handgun or a .30-06 rifle?


BC (cool moniker, BTW), a .45 round will penetrate several interior walls of a home, easily. Even several external walls, given todays standard of fiber insulation, half-inch of foam, and vinyl.

However, that wouldn't stop me from using a firearm to defend myself and my family. For those opposed to the use of firearms for self defense, there will always be what-ifs, and if you let those thoughts paralyze you, you'll always be a victim. Same thing applies to automobiles. Every day, most of us are well within the stopping distance of our vehicles of another, travelling rather rapidly. Why is that? It's VERY dangerous, and we could easily be injured or even killed. We are in much more danger from irresponsible drivers than from people with firearms. Yet we do it because it's socially acceptable. There aren't many media-overblown issues involving cars and violence (even the artificially created "road rage" has dropped off the headlines in the US). It's all about perception and fear.

Anyone that says they're doing it for the children is doing it out of fear, not any logical, statistical reasoning (the Brady stats are false and inflated). There are ways to educate kids on firearms, well before they have a chance to hurt themselves or anyone else. It's irresponsible parents that don't educate them.

Guns can fire accidentaly. I've never heard of cars accidentally driving with drunks inside of them ore spoons accidentaly putting food into Rosie's mouth. And are you joking around with this thread or what? I can't tell. Either way, I still like it.

The only way a gun can fire accidentaly is if the firearm is damaged in some way, or the ambient temperature goes above something like 400 degrees, with a round chambered.

Anything else is NEGLIGENCE on the part of the user (the first two can be considered that as well, for not maintaining the weapon or placing the gun somewhere it gets that hot--or in the case of that barrel heat comment, shooting too damn much! :) ). Just like drunk driving. Stop blaming an inanimate object.

You've never heard of a stuck accelerator? You've never heard of a snapped steering belt? How about a blown tire? Cars can and do malfunction.

The Netherlands has more than twice the murder rate of the United States.

SOURCE: Interpol crime statistics.

The Murder rate for the Netherlands is 1.8 per 100000 which is a quarter of the USA's 8.22 per 100000. And the The International Crime Statistics are only available to authorised police users.

Probably, my dads 65 yo. :p
Mine turns 80 next month, but he still plays lasertag w me and my two sons.

The Murder rate for the Netherlands is 1.8 per 100000 which is a quarter of the USA's 8.22 per 100000. And the The International Crime Statistics are only available to authorised police users.
The homicide rate for the Netherlands is over 11 per 100,000. The U.S. rate is 5.7 per 100,000; it hasn't been 8.2 since 1995! ICS were, until very recently, available to the public at large.

... pencils miss spel words,
... cars make people drive drunk,
... spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat! :D


Hey Eutrusca. How.s it going? Good points, here are more

... knives stab people, not murderers.

... needles draw blood, not phlebotomists.

... tires kill fluffy bunny rabbits, not bad drivers.

Have A Good Week All!

Matthew

Holy Emperor of Dragonmoth

Hey Eutrusca. How.s it going? Good points, here are more

... knives stab people, not murderers.

... needles draw blood, not phlebotomists.

... tires kill fluffy bunny rabbits, not bad drivers.

Have A Good Week All!

Matthew

Holy Emperor of Dragonmoth

Guns are so-ooo impersonal, ya know what I mean?They just don't let people know you care enough to kill up close.Of course,I am opposed to violence.

I love violence. It's killing I abhor.

I think guns would be a lot more politically friendly if they had a stun setting. Or at least an 'injure only' mode.