This is why I keep guns

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

18074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#1 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 18074 Posts

Story, listen to the 911 call.

I've had to fire on an intruder before (I hit him but didn't kill him) and know the terror of a home invasion. This is why I want to beat people who tell ME I shouldn't have guns in MY house.

Avatar image for warbmxjohn
warbmxjohn

6014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#2 warbmxjohn
Member since 2007 • 6014 Posts

Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?

Avatar image for Amnesiac23
Amnesiac23

8470

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 2

#3 Amnesiac23
Member since 2006 • 8470 Posts

I do believe in having a fire-arm in the house for protection. What I do NOT agree with is how easy guns are to get ahold of in this country and use. A childhood friend of mine was shoot in the face and killed not too long ago and her killer has all but gotten away with murder.

Avatar image for Roxas12934
Roxas12934

1854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#4 Roxas12934
Member since 2006 • 1854 Posts

I am definitly gonna buy a firearm when i get my own place.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

18074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#5 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 18074 Posts

Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?

warbmxjohn

I would have but I didn't have a chance. My gun was upstairs, the phone downstairs, and the intruders came in from the downstairs. I didn't get to call until after I shot the guy.

As your link, obviously with children in the home you have to take saftey measures, just as you have to take saftey measures with lye, medicines and electrical dangers when a child is in the home.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

18074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#6 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 18074 Posts

I do believe in having a fire-arm in the house for protection. What I do NOT agree with is how easy guns are to get ahold of in this country and use. A childhood friend of mine was shoot in the face and killed not too long ago and her killer has all but gotten away with murder.

Amnesiac23

Would it make a difference if she were stabbed?

Avatar image for warbmxjohn
warbmxjohn

6014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#7 warbmxjohn
Member since 2007 • 6014 Posts

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]

Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?

br0kenrabbit

I would have but I didn't have a chance. My gun was upstairs, the phone downstairs, and the intruders came in from the downstairs. I didn't get to call until after I shot the guy.

As your link, obviously with children in the home you have to take saftey measures, just as you have to take saftey measures with lye, medicines and electrical dangers when a child is in the home.

I was only talking about that call sorry if I offended you.. I understand if a person doesn't have time, and yes that is a terrifying situation. But my point is that one scenario does not definitively end the debate. There are many reasons for guns and against guns, it is a very complex subject. I am for guns in legal hands to protect homes, but not to the point of beating people that disagree. Both sides make valid points, and both sides make asinine points. You are right that gun control was more the case in the link I provided, but the point remains that some people should not be allowed guns. Like those who freaking forget they have one, and their kid uses it to shoot themselves.
Avatar image for FFCYAN
FFCYAN

4969

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 FFCYAN
Member since 2005 • 4969 Posts

I have two guns, one in my left bicep and one in my right.:P Seriously though, I wouldn't own one.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

18074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#9 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 18074 Posts

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]

Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?

warbmxjohn

I would have but I didn't have a chance. My gun was upstairs, the phone downstairs, and the intruders came in from the downstairs. I didn't get to call until after I shot the guy.

As your link, obviously with children in the home you have to take saftey measures, just as you have to take saftey measures with lye, medicines and electrical dangers when a child is in the home.

I was only talking about that call sorry if I offended you.. I understand if a person doesn't have time, and yes that is a terrifying situation. But my point is that one scenario does not definitively end the debate. There are many reasons for guns and against guns, it is a very complex subject. I am for guns in legal hands to protect homes, but not to the point of beating people that disagree. Both sides make valid points, and both sides make asinine points. You are right that gun control was more the case in the link I provided, but the point remains that some people should not be allowed guns. Like those who freaking forget they have one, and their kid uses it to shoot themselves.

I didn't take offense, but my first reaction was 911, my second was to shoot. I'm not trigger-happy, and I doubt most people are.

And the only people I want to beat are the ones who tell me I have no business owning a gun. I wonder where I would be today if I didn't have one, or if I would even be here, as the guy I shot in my home was armed with a shotgun (I had a 9mm).

I think the gun ownership issue is pretty much settled here in the US, the only issue is what kinds of guns to keep legal.

And you can't exactly tell who is going to forget what, though a gun is a pretty strange thing to forget.

Avatar image for seriousley
seriousley

1093

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 seriousley
Member since 2005 • 1093 Posts

pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.

All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...

in the UK we call that being off your trolley...

Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.

Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

18074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#11 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 18074 Posts

pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.

All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...

in the UK we call that being off your trolley...

Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.

Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment

seriousley

Anyone who enters my home through breaking-and-entering is likely to not come out alive. I don't care about their reasons, this is my personal space. If you invade it illegally, I WILL take action because I have to assume the worst. It's not like I'm going to interview the guy as he breaks into my house to see what his intentions are.

Remember, HE put himself in that situation and the home owners (and myself) were forced into it by HIS descision. Whatever consequences come of the homeowners defending themselves, the intruder brought upon himself.

And I'm aware of English law, and asinine legal rulings including that one guy being a 'danger to burglers', and find such an attitude shockingly naive.

Avatar image for matenmoe
matenmoe

1238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 4

#12 matenmoe
Member since 2004 • 1238 Posts

Oh Boy. This is gonna 'troll' real fast methinks.

I believe in the right "to keep and bear arms" It was already decided as law in USA 240~ years ago. Without our squirrel rifles, the British Empire would still be America's governing body. I will go further by adding with the advent of Homeland Security today, and more Federal control trying to micromanage our personal lives, that the possesion of a gun by citizens may become more important. Thomas Jefferson worried that a big federal government would just become another monarchy. I do not posess my gun currently, having small children in my home. I will retrieve it when they leave, however.

The newest gun issue right now is actually the chokehold which anti-gun lobbyists are placing upon the aquisition of ammunition. If they can't disarm the population, they'll make getting bullets harder instead.The Obama administration is working toward a bill which classifies gun owners as right wing extremists in certain record keeping practices, also. Our Declaration of Independence includes this line:

"..That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.."

I continue to hold to my gun, because should my government get 'destructive' on my people, I will not yeild to them simply because they command it. You know that there isn't any government body that would ever disarm itself, anyway, and criminals can get guns withoutany lawful considerations. So hate me all you want for this-but keep in mind that you are allowed to have your opinions without government regulation still. With or without a gun.

Avatar image for Infinite-Zr0
Infinite-Zr0

13284

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Infinite-Zr0
Member since 2003 • 13284 Posts

Who calls 911 before they grab the gun? Either way one scenario does not definitively end the debate. See?

warbmxjohn
I think as he was going to the phone and calling 911, the guy outside just looked like a drunk guy wandering around. But by the time he starting talking to the operator, the drunk guy was on his way to the door.
Avatar image for AFraud
AFraud

1500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#14 AFraud
Member since 2004 • 1500 Posts

pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.

All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...

in the UK we call that being off your trolley...

Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.

Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment

seriousley

Thank god I don't live in Britain in that case. Way to create laws that protect criminals and punish law abiding citizens merely trying to protect themselves. If someone enters my home intending to harm me or my family, I should be able to kill them with extreme prejudice and not think twice about it. They lost any right to life or limb the second they broke in.

Avatar image for StaticPenguin
StaticPenguin

3433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 67

User Lists: 0

#15 StaticPenguin
Member since 2004 • 3433 Posts

I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.

Avatar image for freham2001
freham2001

2719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 freham2001
Member since 2004 • 2719 Posts
Heck, seriously im going to buy a magnum pistol when i get the chance. No dick is going to break into my house and get away with it.
Avatar image for warbmxjohn
warbmxjohn

6014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#17 warbmxjohn
Member since 2007 • 6014 Posts

I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.

Raikoh_
I *think* I would rather take the 12 gauge slug I would be shooting at that point. The flare would sear into the persons flesh.. Ouch..
Avatar image for StaticPenguin
StaticPenguin

3433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 67

User Lists: 0

#18 StaticPenguin
Member since 2004 • 3433 Posts

[QUOTE="Raikoh_"]

I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.

warbmxjohn

I *think* I would rather take the 12 gauge slug I would be shooting at that point. The flare would sear into the persons flesh.. Ouch..

It's the perfect way to teach pesky intruders a lesson.

Avatar image for warbmxjohn
warbmxjohn

6014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#19 warbmxjohn
Member since 2007 • 6014 Posts

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Raikoh_"]

I want a flare gun... Anyone entering my house uninvited with the wrong intentions is getting a flare in the face.

Raikoh_

I *think* I would rather take the 12 gauge slug I would be shooting at that point. The flare would sear into the persons flesh.. Ouch..

It's the perfect way to teach pesky intruders a lesson.

No doubt there. Very educational.
Avatar image for Papitar
Papitar

2377

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#20 Papitar
Member since 2008 • 2377 Posts

We don't need guns here.

Avatar image for FuriousGeorge08
FuriousGeorge08

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 FuriousGeorge08
Member since 2009 • 27 Posts

[QUOTE="Amnesiac23"]

I do believe in having a fire-arm in the house for protection. What I do NOT agree with is how easy guns are to get ahold of in this country and use. A childhood friend of mine was shoot in the face and killed not too long ago and her killer has all but gotten away with murder.

br0kenrabbit

Would it make a difference if she were stabbed?

While I'm not against the usage of guns by civilians in general, I find that these kinds of comparisons are preposterous. If using a knife to kill someone is just as easy, why do you still use a gun? :) The strawman that is constantly mentioned by the hypocritical gun owner against their prohibition is usually like this 'X kills; should X be outlawed too?' That is not the problematic factor that those who agree with anti-gun laws see. The problem is that guns kill *easily*.
Avatar image for iowastate
iowastate

7922

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#22 iowastate
Member since 2004 • 7922 Posts

I would not be alive if I did not have a firearm.

when my place was broken into my weapon was not put together so I assembled and loaded it to defend against a knife wielding attacker.

I am not sad to say that I am here because he is not and if he had not attempted to kill me there would have been no incident.

In fact after a short investigation the police returned my firearm to me and congradulated my presence of mind.

My mother was also in the house and was lucky to escape. In fact this incident was duplicated on an old episode of "Cops" a few years ago.

I will not mention the city or department. Moved away from that place and am glad to be away from the "notoriety" even thought most was congradulations.

Avatar image for ImmoDuck
ImmoDuck

231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 ImmoDuck
Member since 2007 • 231 Posts

I don't know if I'd actually be able to shoot someone. :?

Avatar image for modestkraut1291
modestkraut1291

763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#25 modestkraut1291
Member since 2009 • 763 Posts

gun should be a last resort. use a melee weapon first

Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts
Living in Norway, crime is is very low and firearms are very very difficult to come by unless you get a hunting license ( which will require to have you registrer yourself with the police with Fingerprints and everything) or you by some miracle manage to raid a Military Ammo depot. So if anyone invades ones homes here they usually come unarmed or with a bat or knife. Additionally the odds of having a robber kill you in your home here is very low as they are usually petty thieves that just want to get some jewlery and get out, if any residents wake up they most of the times flee the scene. I will agree that you must protect yourself and your family and given the state of the crimes in the US, a gun is a reasonable solution but It does sound like its too easy to get ahold off for everybody, often a robber just wants to sneak in, get some money and jewlery and get out and will flee if they hear you've awaken from your sleep, shooting a intruder ought to be done only if they are aggressive towards you and it would be better to just keep them at bay at gunpoint while you call the cops, and then it's those that have assault rifles, shotguns and whatnot to protect themselves. That gets to the point of overkill in my opinion. It takes one bullet to kill, so a single handgun ought to be more then enough to protect you. Running down the stairs with a Minime and unloading a entire clip into your livingroom and a robber and then saying it was in self defence sound pretty ridiculouss in my opinion.
Avatar image for Nifty_Shark
Nifty_Shark

13137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Nifty_Shark
Member since 2007 • 13137 Posts

I'm just glad nobody has ever broken into my home when I was present... never know how messed up in the head the other person is. The thought he would kill me over goods is just so pathetic.

Avatar image for robobie
robobie

2172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#28 robobie
Member since 2007 • 2172 Posts

I don't think he should have gone for the gun so quickly. He could have tried to hold him off until the police arrived

Avatar image for Ice_man91
Ice_man91

245

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 Ice_man91
Member since 2006 • 245 Posts

Here in Australia it's pretty hard to own a gun. The closest thing I have for defence against a home invasion is a bow and arrow and I have terrible aim :P

Avatar image for clembo1990
clembo1990

9976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 clembo1990
Member since 2005 • 9976 Posts
You shouldn't have guns in your house.
Avatar image for deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts
Yeah. The criminals will use guns whether or not they are legal, so how are we going to defend against them if we do not possess any?
Avatar image for clembo1990
clembo1990

9976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 clembo1990
Member since 2005 • 9976 Posts
Yeah. The criminals will use guns whether or not they are legal, so how are we going to defend against them if we do not possess any?Welkabonz
Stun gun? :roll:
Avatar image for deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts
[QUOTE="Welkabonz"]Yeah. The criminals will use guns whether or not they are legal, so how are we going to defend against them if we do not possess any?clembo1990
Stun gun? :roll:

That is a gun is it not? Granted with the range and penetration of that thing you better hope you get lucky.
Avatar image for clembo1990
clembo1990

9976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 clembo1990
Member since 2005 • 9976 Posts
[QUOTE="clembo1990"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"]Yeah. The criminals will use guns whether or not they are legal, so how are we going to defend against them if we do not possess any?Welkabonz
Stun gun? :roll:

That is a gun is it not? Granted with the range and penetration of that thing you better hope you get lucky.

It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.
Avatar image for deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts
It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.clembo1990
Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important?
Avatar image for clembo1990
clembo1990

9976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 clembo1990
Member since 2005 • 9976 Posts
[QUOTE="clembo1990"] It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.Welkabonz
Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important?

It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave?
Avatar image for LosDaddie
LosDaddie

10318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#37 LosDaddie
Member since 2006 • 10318 Posts

The Obama administration is working toward a bill which classifies gun owners as right wing extremists in certain record keeping practices, also. matenmoe

I'd love for you to provide proof of that assertion.

I'll be waiting. :)

Avatar image for xobballox
xobballox

484

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 xobballox
Member since 2008 • 484 Posts

pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.

All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...

in the UK we call that being off your trolley...

Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.

Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment

seriousley
K, so if someone comes in my house with a pistol, and the gun I own is in the room across the hall, I should sit in that room and let them kill me? ...I don't think so.
Avatar image for xobballox
xobballox

484

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 xobballox
Member since 2008 • 484 Posts
[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="clembo1990"] It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.clembo1990
Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important?

It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave?

If he came in my house un-armed, I would hold him up at gun point while someone else in my family called the police, if he was armed and he pointed his gun at me, I don't think I'd hesitate to end him right there.
Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
Cherokee_Jack

32198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 2

#40 Cherokee_Jack
Member since 2008 • 32198 Posts

[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="clembo1990"] It's better than being a murderer. If there's an option there's pretty much no excuse. Criminals, on the whole, want to break into your house steal the stuff and leave so they can sell it to feed their drug addiction. They don't want to break in, torture your family and burn your house down unless you stand in their way. They're trying to survive after all. So when it comes to home defense. It won't hurt to tell them to take the stuff and leave before exploding a gatt like it was a movie or something.clembo1990
Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important?

It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave?

Why are you confined to either letting him go or shooting him on the spot?

Avatar image for clembo1990
clembo1990

9976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 clembo1990
Member since 2005 • 9976 Posts

[QUOTE="clembo1990"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another... shooting an intruder is not unlawful. Let's see, you would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to defend their property to help the addictions of some delinquents. What does that make you but an accomplise and an advocate of theft and assault and substance abuse? Yeah, these guys really deserve to be told that we will not do anything to stop them from taking what they want from us. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever: the one who is robbed is trying to survive just as much as the addicts, so the one who tries to take advantage of the robbed is more important?Cherokee_Jack

It's called empathy. You don't have to be in somebody's position to feel sorry for them. However you phrase it you are killing another human being. Say this person thought you were out, saw your door open and popped in to nick your TV. The guy needs money because he's addicted to crack. He's homeless. You'd kill him for walking into a house and taking something quite benign so he could survive? Of course you wouldn't in retrospect (unless you're a complete bastard, in which case there's no hope for you), but you would stick a gun out from round the corner and open fire, without giving the guy a chance to leave?

Why are you confined to either letting him go or shooting him on the spot?

Why risk anything else?
Avatar image for Brainkiller05
Brainkiller05

28954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 Brainkiller05
Member since 2005 • 28954 Posts

[QUOTE="seriousley"]

pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.

All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...

in the UK we call that being off your trolley...

Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.

Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment

AFraud

Thank god I don't live in Britain in that case. Way to create laws that protect criminals and punish law abiding citizens merely trying to protect themselves. If someone enters my home intending to harm me or my family, I should be able to kill them with extreme prejudice and not think twice about it. They lost any right to life or limb the second they broke in.

So someone deserves to be killed for trespassing/breaking and entry?
Avatar image for Vandalvideo
Vandalvideo

39655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#43 Vandalvideo
Member since 2003 • 39655 Posts
[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"] So someone deserves to be killed for trespassing/breaking and entry?

Yes, atleast if they present a clear danger.
Avatar image for matenmoe
matenmoe

1238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 4

#44 matenmoe
Member since 2004 • 1238 Posts

[QUOTE="matenmoe"]The Obama administration is working toward a bill which classifies gun owners as right wing extremists in certain record keeping practices, also. LosDaddie

I'd love for you to provide proof of that assertion.

I'll be waiting. :)

Avatar image for matenmoe
matenmoe

1238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 4

#45 matenmoe
Member since 2004 • 1238 Posts

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="matenmoe"]The Obama administration is working toward a bill which classifies gun owners as right wing extremists in certain record keeping practices, also. matenmoe

I'd love for you to provide proof of that assertion.

I'll be waiting. :)

DHS DECLARES THAT SECOND AMENDMENT
SUPPORTERS ARE "RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS":
TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN REPORT!

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Did you know that your government considers you to be a "rightwing extremist?"

IT'S TRUE!

According to news reports, the Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," labeling citizens opposed to new firearms restrictions, returning veterans and conservatives as "rightwing extremists" and associating them with white supremacists and violent antigovernment groups.

You read that right -- it appears that the Obama Administration, and especially the DHS under Janet Napolitano, is trying to demonize political dissent. And it's no big surprise who's directly in their crosshairs: supporters of the Second Amendment, including veterans and gun owners.

Who is funding this kind of nonsense? Well, YOU are. Why would your government spend your money attacking YOU, instead of spending your money PROTECTING you?

This calls for grassroots action, on a HUGE scale!

TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

The report also says that Congressional debates about immigration and gun control make extremist groups suspicious and give them a rallying cry:

"It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists," the report said.

Why are they worried? Because since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons. And as far as the Obama administration is concerned, buying guns equals "weapons stockpiling," buying ammo equals "hoarding of ammunition," and expressing concern about Congress passing gun control legislation qualifies YOU as part of an "extremist group."

Therefore, you and I are now being viewed as dangerous rightwing extremists that law enforcement officials need to be watching out for!

This is OUTRAGEOUS!

TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

This report was released "hot on the heels" of another (state) government agency report in February: the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this horrific "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members."

According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":

The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration

Well, there you have it! You see? You ARE a dangerous rightwing extremist!

As ridiculous as that report seems, it was distributed to law enforcement officials across the state of Missouri. And it wasn't until the state government was FLOODED with protests from patriotic Americans across the country, that they finally came out and denounced and retracted the MIAC document.

Now, it's happened again -- but this time, at the Federal level! Our own government is turning against us, and unless there is a HUGE outpouring of outrage from every part of this nation, it will just keep getting WORSE!

TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in BOTH the MIAC report AND the Homeland Security "assessment."

This shouldn't be too surprising: both of these reports are similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies, courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." MIAC is one of those Centers, sponsored by the DHS!

So now, even veterans are targets of our own government: The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."

PLEASE, don't think we're making a "big deal" out of nothing! Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban specifically told the press, "This is nothing unusual," and added that the Homeland Security Department did this "to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again."

The authors of this assessment are pushing an "Us against Them" philosophy. You and I are being marginalized -- labeled as fringe kooks, "rightwing extremists," so that it will be easier to violate our liberties and take away our right to keep and bear arms in the future.

The only thing that will put a STOP to this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to do anything. We either stop it NOW, or it will grow into an out-of-control monster that will monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country.

Avatar image for spazzx625
spazzx625

43433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 0

#46 spazzx625
Member since 2004 • 43433 Posts

I've had to fire on an intruder before (I hit him but didn't kill him) and know the terror of a home invasion. This is why I want to beat people who tell ME I shouldn't have guns in MY house.

br0kenrabbit
What if the intruder was your grandmother coming over to surprise you but too senile to realize what time it was? THEN WHAT!?!?
Avatar image for GreenmonsterBLS
GreenmonsterBLS

1031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 GreenmonsterBLS
Member since 2007 • 1031 Posts

[QUOTE="AFraud"]

[QUOTE="seriousley"]

pfft the last people in the world that should have their own guns are americans...and I can prove it.

All you have to do is register. You aren't trained how to use it, you aren't expected to know how to use it either - just to be able to fill out a form and wait three days...

in the UK we call that being off your trolley...

Regardless,aperson entering your home does not mean youshould get away with using a firearm...the law says use justifiable force...a gun is not justifiable unless it was in your hand or in the room...if you went into adifferent room to get the weapon then it is pre meditated and you should go down for life.

Now that is not necessarily what I believe, but it is how British law works, our laws have been modifiedby the US to construct yourown lawswhich unfortunately contradictso much just for the sake of an amendment

Brainkiller05

Thank god I don't live in Britain in that case. Way to create laws that protect criminals and punish law abiding citizens merely trying to protect themselves. If someone enters my home intending to harm me or my family, I should be able to kill them with extreme prejudice and not think twice about it. They lost any right to life or limb the second they broke in.

So someone deserves to be killed for trespassing/breaking and entry?

They DO NOT deserve to die for breaking and entering, but if they are a THREAT TO MY SAFETY, then shooting them becomes a possibility. If I have an intuder, my first thought isnt to kill him, its to get him OUT of my house and in the hands of the police. I confront him with the weapon and order him to remain there until the police arrive. If the guy resists, or tries to attack me, he gets a bullet. Not trying to be an ass here, but what is your alternative? What do you think about what happened in the incident the TC provided?

Avatar image for Stashbash
Stashbash

479

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 Stashbash
Member since 2008 • 479 Posts

"Stay safe, stay second amendment"

lol...

Avatar image for Hungry_bunny
Hungry_bunny

14293

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 Hungry_bunny
Member since 2006 • 14293 Posts
Okay, that call was simply crazy... It's kinda sad too that he had to get killed. But I don't blame them, if my family had been in danger because some random crazy guy tried to break into my house then I don't know what I'd do. But how the hell do you get soo drunk that you try to break into a random house? >.> This single case does not convince enough to get a gun though (maybe that's because I live in a peaceful neighborhood, I don't know). A gun in my apartment would personally make me feel LESS safe... not more.
Avatar image for LosDaddie
LosDaddie

10318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#50 LosDaddie
Member since 2006 • 10318 Posts

STUFFmatenmoe

That's no proof. That's just another right-wing email being sent around.

Link to me the DHS report claiming that gun owners (which I am) are being labeled as right-wing extremists.

Again, I'll be waiting.