He he, nothing wrong with the wenches!

Well, BillA, as usual you're right. If I did get a gun, I'd have to leave the bullets behind.

I'm glad that we're discussing this.

Since ya'll were cordial enough to point out the difference here, I don't suppose that you would volunteer your opinion on capital punishment?

(Maybe we should start a new thread!)

now for me that is much tougher to call

I enjoy eating wild duck, greatly
so as a hunter (translate = big fish) I shot them, to eat of course
the question:
ever watched a duck as it flies, moving its head from side to side, lOOking for danger
- then you rise up to shoot it

I used to ride my horse by a particular house and the resident dog would hide in different spots in the bushes to jump out and bite my horse in the hocks
- big time, lots of blood
I spoke with the owners, to no avail
so one day I picked up the dog and took it to the hills where I shot it in the head
- it too looked at me

to this day I think about, and regret, killing that dog
why ?
because it was just 'being a dog'

not so with the burglar/assailant, he was being a wolf
now he is a dead wolf
good

I always thought that the difference was that Americans watch TV while Canadians watch American TV... :p

Seriously, while that may highlight one of our many differences, I disagree with your bias. I cannot speak for all who live in my fair country, but I for one am not about to give up my individual rights at the drop of a hat as you imply... however, I do feel that any life is worth more than my damn TV.

Now this is a Spoken Word Poetry thread.

Skulemate

more fuzzy thinking
what ya gonna do, negotiate ?

"ok, you can take the TV and here are some credit cards,
but you can't rape my wife or my daughter"

it is clear you and your family have not been assaulted;
I am not too concerned with my TV, but I am even LESS concerned with a thief's health

here you go Ben

pre-paid capital punishment

the social sciences (sic) crowd is getting pretty good at identifying 'at risk' portions of the populace
- so kill all of such at birth; if the parents are statistically linked, kill them too

a couple of generations - no more social scientists

Of course not Bill... but there is a difference between gathering your family and defending yourselves in a bedroom while you call for help and actively going after the guy. It's not the end reaction that has me, if pushed I bet I'd do the same thing... what gets me is how easily that reaction is thrown around.

And before you respond, I'm not in any way implying that's what you did either... you've not said enough here for anyone except you to know that.

I see you're briefed on social engineering!

I think that the point is taken, for us Canadians, at least! (Skulemate and I).

Since they've outlawed guns in the UK, shooting an intruder will get you arrested, and charged with homicide, as well as illegal posession. Querky, but there.

From the (typical) Canadian view, I have to believe that an intruder is after possesions, not hurting/killing my family. Maybe it's naive of me, but I can't help to think that there would have to be a motive.

But it does happen.

In that light, if I found an intruder, and if I knew that he meant to hurt/kill us, and if I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot, wether the intruder was armed or not.

But that's a pretty long "IF" list.

As already stated, there's an inherent risk in holding a weapon until this happens which to me, outweighs being equipped to respond to such an intruder with deadly force.

Things change...

kind of a concluding note, from my perspective

wolfs like, and eat, sheep
given the social polarization and disintegration that seems apparant,
given the declining social concord and effect of deterrence;
there will likely be more 'freebooters' in the future

whacha gonna do ?
an ounce (can you say 158 grains ?) of prevention is worth a pound of cure

This illustrates the dichotomy fostered for lo, these many years in the more socialistic-leaning countries of Europe (and by extension, Canada). Let me expand...

If a person is out to remove your posessions from you, he does not recognize your rights. Any of them. Whether he has the 'nads to hurt/kill you is beside the point. If he removes your TV, that's OK? How about if he removes your car, clothes, bank account, burns down your house (while you're not in it, for the sake of argument), and leaves your family destitute and forced to live on the street, that should be OK, right? After all, they're only posessions! He isn't PHYSICALLY hurting your family, is he?

The fundamental right of man is to live. To accomplish this, he REQUIRES the right to posess items necessary to life (food, shelter, computers, etc.) If someone is of the mind to deprive you of something that is yours, why would he stop at your TV, if there were no tangible consequences (jail isn't a consequence for those who don't think they'll be caught).

I am not advocating capital punishment for simple larceny, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Bill's intruder took a gamble and lost. Darwinism in action.

/soapbox mode

Bob

Isn't that why we have insurance? Or is it just for those occasions that we weren't home when burglarized? Should a security guard be substituted, no of course, that's not cost efficient.

Of course insurance isn't a substitute for letting people rob you of things.

Good point about jail not being a deterrant.

LOL! Darwinism in action indeed! Wouldn't it be interesting to see what would happen if the basic necessities of life were met, without any effort?

"Wouldn't it be interesting to see what would happen if the basic necessities of life were met, without any effort?"

you are not looking at that which is in front of your nose

do you think car-jackers eat them ?
how can you be so deluded as to think these 'takers' are motivated by "the basic necessities of life" ?

but assuming for the sake of discussion that they were in such need ?
then violence is ok ?

Ben, I hope to NEVER live in your world
need makes right - WOW !

here's the endpoint of that path:
have a ton of babies, have even more, strip the land to feed them
move to the cities on the dole, riot for more, have more babies
seize the capital goods and destroy them and 'the landed gentry', have more babies
seize whatever there still is, and then ?

education is about the only escape, therefore
no education = no children

you, and the world's do-gooders presume it is a distribution 'problem', and that 'life is precious'
well, it ain't so
life is common as dirt, children with no chance dying daily

how about having fewer children, lets make children of value;
have one per individual and at its majority (16 ?) the parent kills themselves ?

there are some hard choices that need to be made, but sanctioning violence is not an alternative (to me)

my take on the whole thing
 

Crush the enemy.

See him driven before you.

Hear the lamentations of the women.

Hum... my suggestion wasn't meant as something to be implemented, even in an ideal world.

I was refering to food and shelter, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that violence would otherwise be acceptable.

But I'll try to follow your thinking, about a car.

Why does someone rob a car? To sell its parts, for money. What does the robber need with money? Food and shelter? Surely not. If such a person steals a car, it's for money, which would more than likely be to pay off someone that he/she owes money to, like a drug dealer, right?

Of course I'm not trying to imply that "need makes right" either. This is my "problem solving" approach:
-find the cause
-open a forum to solutions
-execute a fix

You're delving into "education" and "raising children"as a topic. Is this a distraction tactic to throw off the topic? I will agree with you that there is much to be done in those two areas, and sadly, little is being done. Why?

The MAN is keeping me DOWN!

...
 

KILL ALL DOGS

Allow a "small" modification:
-find the cause
-open a forum to solutions
-execute a fix consistent with the rights of those affected.

If we trample one's rights to ensure some allegedly positive end, we have gained nothing except the precedent of trampling rights. Robbing Peter to pay Paul might get Paul's approval, but what about Peter? What's to stop any of us becoming Peter?

Bob

Of course, I just gave ya'll the short version. Otherwise, it becomes a perpetual effort! (Is that what they call "job security"?)

isn't life a perpetual effort?

'till you enter through the window

The world according to Bill, eh? I would not categorize what Ben said as anything you described nor do I think he is a fool. Maybe where you live your kind of justice flies. Some folks like to think you can shoot anybody in your home, regardless of circumstances. They entertain ideas of going to the kitchen to put a knife in their hand if they are unarmed. Where you live in the US determines the scrutiny you come under when deadly force is used. The type of weapon you use, the bullet you fire, was the perp armed, can come into question. Your way just doesn't work for everyone, everywhere, everytime.

And what’s wrong with a human being not wanting to use deadly force unless absolutely necessary? There are times when the mere presence of a firearm deters a crime. The NRA publishes a page full monthly. Sure there are times when it needs to be used and one should be mentally prepared and trained, but most are not.

I've always had guns and taught my wife to use them. She didn't care for them and could barely cock and lock a .45 Colt. Till one night I wasn't home about 20 years ago and she deterred a break in through the window just by pointing it at the masked, would be intruder. Maybe being a woman alone she could of shot him and not been charged, but she didn't want to shoot because she wasn't at a point of fearing for her safety and would of had to live with it. The what if's go on, what if he came back with a gun, what if he went to another house and harmed someone in the future arguments can be debated, but what if she shot him and she wasn't the same person after that?

If one wants to set themselves ahead of time to be the judge, jury and executioner when someone breaks in fine. But if a guy admits he has doubts about using deadly force there is nothing wrong with him in my eyes. We all have to live with our actions.

no argument; this is all about choices,
and the freedom to make them - and accepting the consequences

not MY world, I'm just passing through and doing my bit

I'd say that the man had no right to be be on my property. He could be a threat to me or my family which is something that an insurance policy cant replace. Is life not of importance now and if so why worry about the robber?

I work for my goodies the robber should have to do the same.

Yeah the media doesnt lie. Everyone or at least kids that plays violent computer games go insain dont they?

On the topic of guns. Just because you own a computer does it mean that you'll be hacking other computers? I would enjoy having a .50 BMG not because I'd want to take someone out with it or for protection (pistols would work for close ranges anyway or at least a cheaper weapon) but because it would be be fun to have. I can shoot at places that'll stop those bullets and plinking coke cans/milk jugs at 1000 yards would be fun I think.

Why do most people want bigger/faster computers? so they can do more with them. I cant see anything but games and intense programs(simulations) needing the power that the higher end computers have. They serve no real purpose but you can have fun on them.

Why do people hotrod their cars(street cars)? They dont have any real porpose but to have fun with too. Oh and they take lives at times dont they? Should they start being regulated?

I enjoy shooting. I see no problem with people having .50 BMGs to shoot with as long as they use them properly(good backstop ect.). Full auto guns would be fun too I'm sure. I've had no chance to shoot any yet but I wanna. When used properly all guns are safe. When use improperly EVERYTHIG is deadly.

Well thebigNil, I agree that a criminal breaking in has no right to be on the property, but the law gives him rights. With law there is no real justice sometimes, just details and how they are presented by an attorney.

Full auto is fun. We had a place nearby us where we could shoot them, called Buffalo Rock. It was an old strip mine made into a shooting range prior to the land reclamation act. To bring your own class III weapons, you had to be licensed and just pay the range fee. Was run by a sometimes crabby old Marine nicknamed Sparky. He was a Korean War vet that did bit parts in some old movies and was advisor to others regarding weapons. He had near every kind of full auto weapon made and you could rent them and shoot them under supervision (unless you were licensed, then by yourself). But you had to buy his ammo if you used his guns, thats where he made his money. Fee was $20 for 20 rounds of rifle or 50 rounds of pistol.

But about 15 years ago Sparky and a couple of his employee's are no more, and near as the fire dept could figure one of the hi volume autoloaders set off a round which set off some kegs of gun powder. He had a storage shed full of it and it leveled the shop. Now it's just a rifle range with no buildings.

If this discussion was about America's stupid import laws for automobiles...i'd be much more involved :D

Well if someone ever broke into my house he has two options open to him.

1. He can run away and get shot in the knees so he can't run until the police get there.

2. He can get shot in the ****ing head as he charges me.

I guess the only mercy he will get from me is if he chooses option one. I won't hesitate either with any option. I honestly don't know of one person in my area who has had there house broken into and not been hurt if they were home. All to often on the news is someone raped, or killed while their house is being broken into. Shit last month some time, 2-3 teenagers broke into an apt. or house. Killed the women, and burnt down the house.

WTF is up with that comment about KILL ALL THE DOGS. You have issues. lol I hate cats but i'd never kill one, unlike my father. He kept setting out antifreeze for them every nite. I had to poor it out every nite. He couldn't figure out how they were drinking it dry but were still alive. :) LOL

mfpmax, I'd love to import a skyline.

But thats easy...if you're rich...just buy one the most known importer

Lightning a fire
 

Well, now I haven't been reading the thread for a while. But I get the feeling of lightning a fire, 85 posts..... omfg! :) Well anyone who owns or has used a H&K USP or Mark 23 please do tell me how you liked or disliked it.

I'm in OHIO and I have a Colt Matchtarget which is identical to an AR-15 other than the name on the barrell. I just bought it at a gun show. My friend has an AR-50 that he legally obtained. But it's hella hard to find a legal place to shoot it. Not too many places are .50cal BMG friendly :)

--Matt

if you thought i was serious you have issues :p

well how about this

i live in australia
and it is illegal to own a hand gun (pistol) of any saught unless given permission otherwise by the australian federal government, ie. either one of the three defence forces, federal police, state police, and other law enforcment agencies.

its also illegal to own an automatic gun/rifle excluding the previous

and its also illegal to own a semi automatic gun/rifle

so really the only gun available in australia is a manual rifle
and you have to pass all saughts of tests and screens to obtain a gun licence

i think you have to pass two psyc tests, a drug and alcohol screen, criminal record clearance and a general physical.
and to top it all off, the licence is only valid for 2 years, then you have to repeat the process

pretty much the only people in australia that own a gun are farmers, gun club members (clay pidgeon shooting), or law/military organizations