11-13-2006, 03:19 PM | #81 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Last edited by Willravel; 11-13-2006 at 04:04 PM.. |
|
11-13-2006, 04:03 PM | #83 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 11-13-2006 at 04:05 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
11-13-2006, 04:09 PM | #84 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
11-13-2006, 04:25 PM | #85 (permalink) | |
Tilted
|
Quote:
So yes, I pull the trigger. Yes, they tempt me. Let me repeat that; they tempt me to take their life, and I'm going to take them up on their offer. Simple as that. Whether it's a gun, a knife, my car, or anything else. That's secondary. If they survive, that's secondary as well, as long as I (and those I'm trying to protect) make it. The training for carrying concealed weapons usually involves applying force until the threat is gone. So no, the goal is not to kill or maim or injur. The goal is to STOP THE THREAT, and this is about where the discussion turns religious, so I'd rather just shake hands and call it good. We're not going to agree on whether it's right or wrong to take a life to save your own. We're not going to agree on whether non-lethal defense tools are effective or not. 30 years from now, when we have multi-shot taser guns with a range of 30 yards plus where you don't have to rewind the wires for every bad guy, things'll be different. Until you no longer have to squirt a puny stream of kitchen spices into an attacker's eyes, it'll be easier to pump him full of lead anywhere in his filthy carcass. |
|
11-13-2006, 04:28 PM | #86 (permalink) | |||
Artist of Life
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Ch'i; 11-13-2006 at 04:33 PM.. |
|||
11-13-2006, 04:32 PM | #87 (permalink) | |
Tilted
|
Quote:
1) you stand still = you die. 2) you fight (unarmed) = you die (especially if he has a 6" knife and an accomplice) 3) you run = a good plan most of the time 4) you shoot him = he dies (and you ONLY possibly die if he has an accomplice) That's about how I see it. Now toss into that mix all the people who couldn't run. Your grandmother, kids, the disabled, hell even your mother. I can outrun my mother if I'm running backwards. Run those choices by them and see which is the better fit. |
|
11-13-2006, 04:35 PM | #88 (permalink) | |
Artist of Life
|
Quote:
|
|
11-13-2006, 04:37 PM | #89 (permalink) | |
Tilted
|
Quote:
|
|
11-13-2006, 04:44 PM | #90 (permalink) | ||||||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to defend yourself. Neither is Ch'i. No one is. Defend yourself if you are in danger. Just don't go Rambo and kill everyone. Last edited by Willravel; 11-13-2006 at 04:52 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||||
11-13-2006, 05:05 PM | #91 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|
11-13-2006, 05:08 PM | #92 (permalink) | |
Artist of Life
|
Quote:
|
|
11-13-2006, 05:08 PM | #93 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A gun doesn't make me feel safer, it is the BEST tool of self defense for me. Like it is for ALOT of people that aren't as good at hand to hand as YOU are.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 11-13-2006 at 05:14 PM.. |
|||
11-13-2006, 05:10 PM | #94 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Willravel; 11-13-2006 at 05:12 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
11-13-2006, 05:16 PM | #95 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
||
11-13-2006, 05:18 PM | #96 (permalink) | ||||
Artist of Life
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Ch'i; 11-13-2006 at 05:22 PM.. |
||||
11-13-2006, 07:16 PM | #97 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
Look: if attacked with lethal force in a circumstance where retreat was impossible, I would probably respond with the minimum force I deemed necessary to stop the attack, and I wouldn't be too concerned if that level of force was lethal. But to say that's not a choice on my part is just irresponsible. Nobody forced me to respond that way, not even the person who is attacking me. I always have the say over my actions, no matter what the circumstances are. I quit pretending that other people made me do things when I was 12 years old. Many of you have made that choice in advance, and good for you. It's smart to have any qualms you have about that worked out before you find yourself in that situation. But let's not pretend that's not a choice you're making. In many cases, people in this thread have chosen that they will take another person's life. I'm not saying it's unjustified or wrong--just that you have to face and come to terms with the choice you're making there. Personally, I don't think I could choose that action in advance, but that's why I'm me and you're you. |
|
11-13-2006, 07:21 PM | #98 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|||
11-13-2006, 07:43 PM | #99 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
In conclusion, when you have a gun, you take other people's lives in to your hands, usually without permission. No one made you go buy a gun and carry the thing around (though a criminal making you buy a gun for defence at gunpoint would be very ironic). Quote:
Quote:
dksuddeth, baring military service, you'll never be in a shootout. I can say that with certianty. The "but what if" arguments are so statistically improbable that they become laughable, espically those of the armed-home-invasion-when-you're-home or massive-drawn-out police/well-armed-criminal-shootout persuasion. You won't need your gun. I wouldn't need a gun if I had one. Ch'i wouldn't need a gun if he had one. Because you'll never need your gun, you'll want to use it to excuse your having it. That's kinda dangerous. Combine that with the Rambo mentality, and you've got a recipe for 'accedenal death', 'involuntary manslaughter', or 'criminal neglegence'. |
|||
11-13-2006, 10:26 PM | #100 (permalink) | ||||||||
Tone.
|
Quote:
Nothing wrong with that - considering a gun is SUPPOSED to kill things, you'd expect the guy designing it to be thinking along those lines. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking guns are designed for self defense. They're not, any more than they're designed for murder. They're designed to kill. What, or who, the user decides to kill is immaterial as far as the "reason" for the gun. Quote:
But just because I don't want to take away your gun doesn't mean I think you have a *constitutionally guaranteed* right to it. Quote:
Quote:
I tend to tell my students to diversify. Carry the knife (if you know how to use it *and* keep the other guy from getting it, otherwise if you carry it you're a moron), but also be very well versed in empty hand. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And yes, the gun is quite relevant. You don't hear about a whole lot of drive by stabbings. The gun is relevant because it allows you to kill from a distance. The crook can be 10 feet away and still kill me. I'm not comfortable letting a potential enemy (or ally who's a crappy shot) get hold of a weapon that can kill from far enough away that I don't have a chance of stopping it. |
||||||||
11-14-2006, 05:16 AM | #101 (permalink) | ||||||||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
..........Luke 22:36 Quote:
I've posted this link before, but there is a new one up since then. I encourage everyone to read it. http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...s4-1-Print.pdf Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 11-14-2006 at 05:29 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||||||
11-14-2006, 06:42 AM | #102 (permalink) | ||||||
Tone.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"“Seek peace, and pursue it. (Proverbs 34:14)”" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
11-14-2006, 08:17 AM | #103 (permalink) | |||||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And when a criminal is shooting at you from a distance, duck. |
|||||
11-14-2006, 11:22 AM | #104 (permalink) | |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
Quote:
Guns aren't the end all be all. Just because someone chooses to use a gun as their weapon of choice for self-defense, does not automatically mean "shoot to kill". Same for any weapon. If someone is using a sword, kitchen knife etc as defense it would still be pretty gruesome if not more so. A gun doesn't have to kill, it just has to stop or incapacitate the attacker. I feel better knowing my mom and grandma have small guns in their purse for defense rather than some hunting knife (hypothetically speaking- assume they are properly trained). |
|
11-14-2006, 02:24 PM | #105 (permalink) | ||||
Sir, I have a plan...
Location: 38S NC20943324
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A few "dinks" with popguns (Vietcong ring a bell?) does not adequately describe the 25% of Americans who own firearms. You also assume (incorrectly) that the military of this country would just gleefully and unquestioningly go about killing it's own citizens in the defense of a regime corrupt enough to incite a rebellion. Quote:
__________________
Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
Last edited by debaser; 11-14-2006 at 02:33 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||
11-14-2006, 03:34 PM | #106 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
When they wrote the constitution what type of guns do you think they were refering to? They never cited "just hunting rifles" or "just single shot guns" or even "guns that can have another purpose besides killing a person" they said ARMS. Arms as in weapons. A hunting rifle is a tool, used to kill game so that you can eat. A weapon is something to be used in a contest of force. A weapon's sole purpose is to kill, maime, wound, whatever you are fighting. As a reminder, the people that created this law, were not Frontiersmen or anything of the sort. How much hunting do you think went on in "the wilds of Boston" or the "Dark Forest of Philadelphia"? The rest of the Consitution was written to anticipate and adapt to change. I see no reason why they did not also expect weaposn technology to develope beyond the means they had back then. These were also people that had just survived a lenghty war. I'm quite sure they knew the grizzly reality of musket balls tearing into human flesh. Yet they still chose the word ARMS as in Weapons not as in hunting tools. So to ban assualt rifles becuase their sole purpose for existance is to kill or injure people, is absurd. |
|
11-14-2006, 03:46 PM | #107 (permalink) |
Tilted
|
Will, you've said yourself that your mind is a weapon, and from what you've told us so far, are you sure you're California-Legal? I mean, you should at least have to register yourself and be required to lock your hands up at night.
All joking aside, your reasoning is sound... for somebody who could kick Chuck Norris's butt blindfolded But seriously, your views are not really valid for I'd say 85% of the population, depending on where you go. Sure, in sunny hip Cali, you might find lots of joggers and yuppies who practice martial arts, but not that's the exception. I'm sorry, but put most people in a fight with a knife-wielding attacker or two, and they're gonna shit themselves. I wouldn't put any money on them. So yeah, you confidently say "No way, Jose." That's GREAT. I'm not as confident in my abilities, so I'll be happy if I can pull out that steel and squeeze away. And sure, you can give in to their demands, but who's to say that'll placate them? How far do you go with their demands? Where do you draw the line? That's how 100's of people sit quietly in a plane as it's rammed into a building. That attitude isn't an option for me. And you guys go on and on about "boo hoo, why kill the poor criminal" with absolutely no regard for the safety of ordinary folks. As I get over that churning feeling in my stomach, lemme put you in the role of an average thug, getting ready to decide which of two houses to rob. If you knew fairly certainly that one house had a few guns in it and the inhabitants trained, while the other didn't, which house would you break into? It's that simple. People are scared to die. They don't have to die to be affected by that fear. Think of it like training. They hear of a bunch of their buddies getting iced, they shit themself and give up. At least if they're smart. Uping the stakes more is hardly worth it for pocket change. Peppers are for food, not a weapon. A pair of $5 snorkel goggles is as good as armor against pepper spray. Add some thick winter clothing and a taser is going to be marginal at best. When you have an inexpensive tool that can engage multiple threats, possibly at range, fit in my hand, and is easily concealable, let me know. Also, I don't see where you guys are going with whole "choice" thing. Sure, I pull the trigger. Great. So what? If a dumpster comes rolling at me down a hill, stepping out of the way is a choice. Everything is a choice. My choice will always be one that puts me on top the easiest, so for me, it's not really a choice. If there was an "Easy Button" like in the Staples ad, I'd use that instead of the gun. Really. |
11-14-2006, 04:47 PM | #108 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-15-2006, 06:13 AM | #109 (permalink) | |||||||||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As I've said, sometimes lethal force is the only option left to stay alive or to avoid serious injury.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|||||||||
11-15-2006, 07:11 AM | #110 (permalink) | |||||
Crazy
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure someone out there is wondering where the consistancy is in my posts. I am the kind of person whose personal views tend to piss off people on both sides of every major issue. I believe in LIMITED control. I am considered by people in my community to be in favor of gun control. I think we do need to control who has guns. The purpose of a gun is to kill, maim, or at least injure. It is important that those we allow to own these weapons have some basic skills. I dont see how we can justify the need to prove ability to drive before we legally allow someone to drive, yet we do not require that people prove they have the ability to use a gun before allowing them to own a gun. Our constitution does not provide for the use of guns by mad men and blind people. These people, by the nature of their disability, are not able to be part of a 'well regulated' militia, regardless of how you interpret the word regulated. That said, I'm also very much against letting the government have to much control. I don't really see a way to balance these things out, except to say that when it comes to protecting health and life of innocents the government must be asked to intervene with laws and restrictions, and at all other times they must be kept from intervening.
__________________
~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~ "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips
|
|||||
11-15-2006, 08:00 AM | #111 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
This indicates the main tool the gun lobby has: scare tactics. Booga booga, buy a gun or you might get beat down. Never mind that hardly anyone actually gets beat down--it's so bad for the ones that DO, that we should all be strapped at all times. I admit, it has a certain kind of logic, in a sad, sick way. |
|
11-15-2006, 08:42 AM | #112 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Xera, seriously, there are no such things as "bad guys". Everyone has motives and though processes, and sometimes they can do very bad things, but there is no such thing as a 'bad guy'. The term conjures up Hanz from Die Hard ot Darth Vader. Those are archetypes, not full personalaties. And CPR prevents death, while guns cause death. |
|
11-15-2006, 09:08 AM | #113 (permalink) | |
Crazy
|
Quote:
I don't care if it's preventing death, or protecting one's self from harm, by whatever means a person finds they need to, if you need something and don't have it because it was unlikely you would need it, your screwed. Unless of course it was a condom you needed, in which case your probably NOT gonna be screwed.
__________________
~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~ "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips
|
|
11-15-2006, 09:19 AM | #114 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
mace, in this instance, wouldn't have done much against 10-25 people. A taser would have done less, considering it's a one shot deal. The ONLY thing that would have stopped this in it's tracks would have been the possibility of being killed by a bullet. Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 11-15-2006 at 09:38 AM.. |
||
11-15-2006, 09:31 AM | #115 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-15-2006, 09:37 AM | #116 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
||
11-15-2006, 09:39 AM | #117 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-15-2006, 10:07 AM | #118 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
||
11-15-2006, 10:25 AM | #119 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
I think Will is saying, and please forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth here Will, that people are just people and some do bad things but that makes for bad actions not bad people.
I tend to disagree, believing that if you do enough bad things you are a bad person. I understand, I think, what his point of view is and why he feels that way, I personally just think he's wrong. I think it is that attitude which allows people to deny responsibility for their own actions and I think it is one of the major downfalls in modern society but that is a different debate. [/thread jack]
__________________
~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~ "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips
|
11-15-2006, 10:49 AM | #120 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
I have no more wish to understand, negotiate with, or in any way accomodate sociopathic predators; nor more than I wish to accomodate or understand a rabid wolfhound. I may pity their condition, I may even comprehend their motives. I understand the mechanism of Rabies, after all; that doesn't mean that I allow rabid animals to live.
At the risk of sounding sociopathic myself, I hold the two to be roughly equivalent. A rabid dog, as cute and friendly as he may once have been, needs to die. Right now. Friendly once or not, -NOW- that dog is a potentially lethal threat. Friendly as he was at 5 or 10 years old, a gangbanger, burgaler, or other sociopathic criminal (to say nothing of the REAL nasties, as mentioned above) a potentially violent criminal is a potentially lethal threat, and the response should be identical. I have no qualms about killing someone who, for all I know, is a few seconds away from killing -me- instead. If this individual is carrying or brandishing a weapon, he is threatening my life. Period. I decided, a long time ago, that people who threaten the lives or persons of myself, my family, or my friends -also- need to die. Someone who is so mentally disturbed, so socially and morally unhinged as to feel justified in threatening someone's life in exchange for that other persons' compliance or their property, is no longer fit to live among decent people. I'd be happy if they all went away somewhere (Coventry, maybe?), but since they never have and never will, I simply plan on removing any that are dumb enough to come into my circle, as it were. I don't go looking for them; in fact I go to great lengths to avoid them. However, if they come looking for me, they are in for a very nasty and probably very brief surprise. If they were to run away (hopefully "scared straight") when I drew my weapon, I would do a giddy little Happy Snoopy Dance. The best solution is -always- that the bad guy runs away. But if he hangs around after the gun is drawn, he's just committed the terminal error of being both mean and double-stupid. That kind of idiocy doesn't fly in nature, and it won't fly with me. I am not food, and I will not be eaten. The problem with assuming that a criminal will let you live if you run/comply/resist w/out a gun is this: you don't know if you will be allowed to live until you're home, behind a locked door. The bad guy might decide to off you at any time; nervousness, an itchy finger, or "just 'cause I felt like it" have all been proffered as the motive for otherwise random shootings in the past. I can be reasonably sure I'll survive the encounter when the former mugger is either running away (the usual, and hoped-for result) or dead on the ground (a much rarer occurance). Finally, as for statistics: http://www.jpfo.org/data-docs.htm (It's safer by FAR to resist with a firearm; citations provided.) The 2-3 bits you want about about ten lines down the page. Edited to add: "One in a million!" is cold comfort to the person with the misfortune to be the One in question. Last edited by The_Dunedan; 11-15-2006 at 11:00 AM.. Reason: Edited To Add |
Tags |
congress, democratic, effects |
|
|