Originally posted by MikeH
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Hey Slowwy! You should be proud of your daughter!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe View PostAnd ... you don't get a gun without basic handgun safety training and a bit of practice.Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
Originally posted by gribbler View PostUnless the burglars flee as soon as they hear the first gunshot.
This is the reason I Dan'sd my post #163 to change from "deadly force" to "deterrent force".Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe; December 4, 2012, 13:09."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by MikeH View PostUnless this is some kind of legal requirement I bet that statement is not accurate and a lot of people do exactly that."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by DinoDoc View PostStabbing people seems like a decent way to kill them as well which brings us back to TMM's point.
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe View PostVery true. Anyone who picks up an instrument intending it as a weapon without martial arts training is essentially a waste. Be it knife, broom handle (staff), fireplace poker, bat, or golf club (Short stick). Its a truism that practically any weapon requires training to be deadly. The defining reason why guns are the exception are range (i.e no need to close with the enemy), extreme lethality and rate of fire.
Comment
-
Obviously guns are a safer defence (although not always for family members/by standers) but killing a burglar or attacker isn't always necessary."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Not sure it's really safer.
If you haven't got a gun your armed intruder intent on stealing your stuff might be content to threaten you with their gun and make their escape/steal your stuff.
If they find you are armed they might decide to just shoot first.
Plus there's always the chance your intruder can get your weapon off you.
Anyway the chance of someone randomly breaking into your house to do you harm (rather than to steal your stuff) is unbelievably miniscule anyway. It's not worth the statistically much higher risks to your safety that having a firearm in the house brings (IMO).Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
Originally posted by MikeH View PostUnless this is some kind of legal requirement I bet that statement is not accurate and a lot of people do exactly that.
Then there's Arizona.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Comment
-
If as was suggested the intention is to fight (not flight) an intruder, choice of makeshift weaponry within the house is a substandard approach. You have already comitted to a confrontation in the hopes that you can scare away (unlikely) or render incapcitated at least one if not a number of unknown assailants. If the intruder(s) are armed you have committed a course of action putting yourself in grave danger with inferior odds of success.
In the case of a fire armed person, if your intruder(s) are unarmed the far greater liklihood is that they rationally will understand they are outgunned (Pardon the pun) and will attempt to flee the scene, rather than attempt a given multiple person scuffle. Contrast that with an inferiorly armed or perceived physically inferior person that will cause the intruder(s) calculus to change and has a greater liklihood of melee.
As for the inherent dangers of gun ownership, let the buyer beware."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Unless this is some kind of legal requirement I bet that statement is not accurate and a lot of people do exactly that.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
What are you talking about? The holy see have executed hundreds of people over the years.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostAbsolutely, while you seem happy to sit and throw out little snide remarks while the same old people show their normal lack of human empathy and compassion. I'm pleased to know that's not because you're Canadian, just because you're you.
You really do not seem to get that you do not have a corner on human empathy, compassion, or any other positive quality.
You don't seem to get that different people in different places are going to have experiences, values and priorities that are different from yours and most of the people who live near you. The different culture they are in, and the different priorities they have will lead to actions different from yours given a very similar set of facts.
You don't seem to get that your inappropriate use of loaded terms and phrases (vigilante, extra-judicial killing, lack of respect for human life, etc) shut down minds to your message rather than encouraging useful discussion. I find this all rather baffling as I thought you had a background in history and should be well aware of the many pitfalls you throw yourself into.
You don't seem to get that you come across as a pompous, arrogant, pretentious git in this thread (and some others); the British equivalent of the quintessential 'ugly American.' It's a shame, because you are an intelligent, knowledgeable person. When you are not on some holier-than-thou horse you say some interesting things.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MikeH View PostThe difference I was trying to establish here was the difference of the level of acceptance of people using a gun for self defence.
I think it has to do with the prevalence of guns and maybe differences in the amount of time that has passed since people needed to be able to defend themselves when there was little or no law enforcement.
American cutlure is simply more violent than that in Britain, and lethal violence is going to be more readily accepted as a form of self defence.(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Comment
Comment