This will be mines in less than 2 weeks

[Sand]

It would be pointless to do so.

If you are an idealist I would not reccomend involving yourself in politics. The political process will sour you on your country, your countrymen, democracy and make you doubt the worth of all good things. It is like a huge private club where common sense is checked at the door. Nobody cares about actually solving problems, just about being on the right side of them. You will be shocked to hear the condescending and insulting way political insiders think of the average citizen, but after talking to voters you will start to feel the same way. Most of them (politicians) do not have a shred of self respect and most honestly believe we NEED them in office simply because they are so much better than we are. Winning in politics is the equivalent of selling your soul for beans.

 

I wouldn't be shocked at all. That is why I figured it would be pointless to get involved in government. Hell, it might even be pointless to even vote. Yep, apathy is setting in and a slight destructive urge to blow something up. Hmmmm...

 

I think I need to install Unreal Tournement again.

[Eddo36]

I disagree. The best home defense weapon IMHO is a .12 GA pump shotgun. Use #2 buckshot, keep the magazine full and the chamber empty. If needed, the sound of the pump chambering the shell is usually enough to send anyone running. Plus you do not need to be particularly accurate to be effective with it. And, odds are the blast will not penetrate a wall (provided you are not right in front of it). A pistol shot will punch right through a wall or two. Makes you think about which way you are shooting.

 

Or try www.housegun.com

Edited February 7, 2007 by Eddo36

[Gfted1]

I disagree. The best home defense weapon IMHO is a .12 GA pump shotgun. Use #2 buckshot, keep the magazine full and the chamber empty. If needed, the sound of the pump chambering the shell is usually enough to send anyone running. Plus you do not need to be particularly accurate to be effective with it. And, odds are the blast will not penetrate a wall (provided you are not right in front of it). A pistol shot will punch right through a wall or two. Makes you think about which way you are shooting.

 

Or try www.housegun.com

 

 

Hehe, this cracked me up:

 

We also offer a powerful proprietary tactical light that mounts under our barrels. It aims the gun like a laser and shows the spread pattern on the target at different distances.

 

Imagine looking down and seeing 20 laser dots on your chest.

[Sand]

That would slightly freak me out.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

[Tarkin] I grow tired of asking this, so it'll be the last time [/Tarkin]

 

 

Now please pay attention. Bullets will kill you three ways:

 

1. the 'zombie' kill

Shots to the mid and rear brain will drop you on the floor immediately. Shots that purely damage the forebrain and someo f the mid brain structures often won't. However, most can lead to...

 

2. Bleed out

Damage to arteries and other blood bearing tissues, such as the heart or spleen cause a loss of blood. Without blood you can't get oxygen to your tissues. Without oxygen you can't function.

 

3. Shock

No-one I know has ever given me a concrete explanataion for this. Essentially, sometimes when subjected to great pain, especially coupled with surprise, the body just quits. Out like a light.

 

4. Conceivably you could literally chip bits off a person

 

This is why the old .22 does 1D6 dam. .44 does 8D6 dam is utter nonsense. It depends almost entirely on where you get shot. Thinking you need a magnum round to protect yourself is waffle.

 

EDIT: and if you'd seen as many autopsy reports as I have you wouldn't be so bloody excited about killing people just because they want into your house. As I've previously said in other threads I nearly shot my next door neighbour for precisely that because I couldn't identify them in the dark. I'm eternally glad I didn't.

[Plano Skywalker]

This is why the old .22 does 1D6 dam. .44 does 8D6 dam is utter nonsense. It depends almost entirely on where you get shot. Thinking you need a magnum round to protect yourself is waffle.

 

EDIT: and if you'd seen as many autopsy reports as I have you wouldn't be so bloody excited about killing people just because they want into your house. As I've previously said in other threads I nearly shot my next door neighbour for precisely that because I couldn't identify them in the dark. I'm eternally glad I didn't.

 

it seems to me that the biggest advantage that a night prowler has over you is that he has his night vision

and you don't (just waking up, any light would be painful). this is the climate in which loved ones might get

shot, etc because you really can't discern what is going on.

 

still, i think having a powerful floodlight that you turn on just as the prowler enters a certain room and then

follow-up with pepper spray would take down any lone intruder.

[Sand]

Why was your neighbor trying to break into your house, Walsie?

[Walsingham]

Why was your neighbor trying to break into your house, Walsie?

 

They were dressed entirely in black, and appeared to be hanging off the edge of teh roof with a knife in their hand. It turned out that my neighbour (the judge) was cleaning the gutters while suffering from insomnia.

 

I also happen to like Plano's idea of neutralising and confusing the intruder. Bright lights, strange noises etc would serve the other purposes of alerting your loved ones and the neighbours to a problem. I'd suggest something like pepper spray would do a good job at convincing them to leave the premises.

 

I should add tat I'm well aware, from my past work, of teh fact that you will occasionally find criminals whose intent is sadistic, not larcenous. Your firearm really will come in handy then. BUt equally, trying a lesser response first will serve to convince both you and a court that lethal force was required. You'll fight a lot harder and shoot better if your conscience is clean.

 

BTW, if the moral argument doesn't convince you, you have realised that getting blood all over your house will require you to replace a lot of stuff like carpets which will almost certainly cost more than the poor fool can steal?

[Sand]

Why would he be cleaning the gutters inside your house? :confused:

 

Why would he be cleaning your gutters in the first place?!?!? :confused:

 

I would only shoot to kill if the person is inside the house. If he or she was outside then I would do what Plano suggested.

[Walsingham]

Why would he be cleaning the gutters inside your house? :confused:

 

Why would he be cleaning your gutters in the first place?!?!? :confused:

 

I would only shoot to kill if the person is inside the house. If he or she was outside then I would do what Plano suggested.

 

They werren't inside the house, but they were hanging off it outside my bedroom window with a knife. I was going to shoot, thinking in the clinical way you chaps are advocating, but I suddenly thought about the consequences, and also the fact that I'd never know why on earth they were doing it. So I stuck the gun in their face and demanded an explanation. A slightly unrepeatable occurrence, perhaps, but I think you can see my point. *shrugs* maybe it's because I've met too many criminals to consider them inhuman. I'll defend myself and my property, but to the extent demanded. I certainly don't relish the prospect or think about the means of defence as an exciting opportunity to shoot someone.

[Sand]

Neither do I, so in the case that you represent, since they were outside your home and not in, I would probably react the same way and not shoot. Now if they were already in the house, that would be a slightly different story.

[Calson]

I support guns for the same reason they're protected by the Constitution. Not for the sake of personal protection from thieves, attackers, or foreign nations, but for the sake of protection from a corrupt government. It has been said to the point of being a cliche, but people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people. The right to own guns is an assurance that no matter what happens, no matter how corrupt or detached the government gets from the people it governs, as long as the people have the right to bear arms, they will have some say in that government, if only through revolt.

 

Of course, the spirit of that interpretation has long been subverted.

 

 

Actually, guns are not protected by the constitution.. Arms (i.e. armaments), which includes guns are.. This includes your right to have missile launchers, ICBMs, attack helicopters, fighter jets, AA guns, ..... Oh wait, you can't have any of those despite the constitution saying that you can... In today's world, if the government decided to turn against the American people completely, then those are exactly the kinds of weapons you would need to resist. A 9mm stuck in your belt is not going to make a soldier stop and think.

So, basically, the second amendment is a myth, and your interpretation also falls down.

 

I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.

[Guard Dog]

I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.

 

Here we go again.....

 

Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it.

[Aram]

As I understand it, Eddo, the new M&P is a fine handgun. I've heard testimony from a few people stating feeding problems with theirs but others who say theirs run flawlessly. The plus side to buying a S&W is that they stand by their products and anything that might be wrong with your pistol, they will be more than happy to fix. Good to see you talked yourself out of the .500. I still hold that a .22 will give you much more inexpensive enjoyment than even a 9mm for a beginning shooter.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Aram

[alanschu]

I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.

 

Here we go again.....

 

Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it.

 

 

Slippery Slope fallacy.

[Aram]

I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.

 

"Going Waco" on half the homes in the US? Are you out of your mind? Do you even know what happened at Waco?

It's estimated that at least half the households in the US own a firearm. To surround every one of those houses with a division of jackbooted thugs with automatic weapons and armored vehicles and then accidentally burn them down would effectively turn us into a police state in a crisis of civil war. In America we believe in our 2nd amendment right and very many of us would not just give it up because the government one day decided to do away with it on a whim. The idea of forcefully confiscating the firearms of the American populace is incredibly foolish.

[Aram]

Is such precision truly necessary in firing upon an intruder?

 

If your life is on the line, the answer would be "hell yes."

Are you really trying to make an argument against easily visible sights? These arguments get wierder every time one springs up, I swear...

 

I mean, if it's dark enough that you need glow in the dark sights to truly have an idea of where you're aiming, can you even see the person you're aiming at?

 

Often times, yes. It takes a lot of light to be able to see plain iron sights. If its dark enough that you couldn't read a book, you probably will have limited use of your sights, but you could still have enough vision of your target to identify him in a lineup. And even if you can't see who precisely your target is, if they've broken into your home in the middle of the night, you're going to be pointing a gun at them anyway.

 

A decent sight picture is extremely important no matter what you're shooting at, whether its a can, a deer, or an attacker. If you can't see your front sight, you can't hit your target. It's as simple as that. You need to see where your gun is pointing if your target is five feet away or fire hundred feet away.

 

And when it comes to confronting an attacker, there is only one thing to do. If you feel that your life is in danger, and you quite understandably believe that your life is more important than theirs, you aim at the largest mass of the target or wherever you easily can to stop the target the fastest, you fire, and you keep firing until your life is no longer in danger. There is no shoot to wound, or shoot to kill. There is only the fastest possible suppression of a threat to your life. If you're using a firearm, you should pretty much expect someone's going to die. If you really feel that you attacker's life is more important than yours, feel free to find some other means to defend yourself or don't at all. It's your choice.

[Guard Dog]

I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.

 

Here we go again.....

 

Yeah what the hell Calson says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. It's quite a country you want to create there Calson. I'm glad I won't live to see it.

 

 

Slippery Slope fallacy.

Not at all. Shutting down gun maufacturers will be a direct violation of Article 1 sect 8 of the US Constitution. It will also be a violation of the 4th and 9th 10th amendments since they are all non-government entities publicly or privately owned. Conficastion of private property (guns) will be a violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Going "waco" on people who refuse to give up their God-given freedoms is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. Once the government can ignore the Constitution with impunity it will not be worth the paper it's written on.

 

The only way you can make this happen legally is a constitutional amendment repealing the second, or amending it to prohibit private ownership. That will happen when pigs grow wings and fly.

[Aram]

I'd imagine that firing a blank would be more than effective at protecting yourself and your home, with perhaps the second round in the magazine being a live round in case the intruder doesn't buy it.

 

If someone meant me harm, I'd rather not trust my life to be protected by some loud scary noises. People aren't bears. If one means to kill or otherwise harm you, bullets work better than any other type of ammunition, and that's all your target should recieve. If they don't mean to kill or otherwise harm you, you shouldn't be shooting at them in any case.

 

Simulating the sound of a gunshot is only going to make the target think you mean to kill him when you don't. A verbal ultimatum would work better than a false start. Most firearms, unlike in the movies, don't fire blanks and bullets interchangabely in any case. Automatics require a blank firing attachment and a weaker action spring if they're going to be operated by gas alone.

[alanschu]

It did not look as though your argument was directed that way.

 

 

Especially considering your current post includes amendments not originally stated, and excludes an amendment originally stated. It certainly looked like you were arguing that if he were to want to get rid of the second amendment, we might as well start tossing out other amendments just because.

[Guard Dog]

Simulating the sound of a gunshot is only going to make the target think you mean to kill him when you don't. A verbal ultimatum would work better than a false start. Most firearms, unlike in the movies, don't fire blanks and bullets interchangeably in any case. Automatics require a blank firing attachment and a weaker action spring if they're going to be operated by gas alone.

A BFA (Blank Firing Adapter) goes over the end of the barrel and screws a bolt into the muzzle. The idea is, without a projectile to trap the gas from the charge, you need to close the barrel to work the action of the gun. It take a little while to take one on and off, and you really can't do it in the dark. Also, most manufacturers do not make them in any case. They figure if you wanted a toy gun, you wold have bought one.

[Guard Dog]

It did not look as though your argument was directed that way.

 

 

Especially considering your current post includes amendments not originally stated, and excludes an amendment originally stated. It certainly looked like you were arguing that if he were to want to get rid of the second amendment, we might as well start tossing out other amendments just because.

Well, they MIGHT try to ban PAC groups like the NRA so there goes the 1st amendment but you got the idea. As for the first post, I just threw those out off the top of my head, but when you called me on it I really gave it a bit more thought.

[alanschu]

If someone meant me harm, I'd rather not trust my life to be protected by some loud scary noises. People aren't bears.

 

People are in fact spooked by loud noises. Go into a public place and fire your gun in the air, see how many people stop in their tracks.

 

If one means to kill or otherwise harm you, bullets work better than any other type of ammunition, and that's all your target should recieve. If they don't mean to kill or otherwise harm you, you shouldn't be shooting at them in any case.

If someone means to kill or otherwise harm you, the chips are already stacked against you. I hope you sleep with a loaded gun and a bullet in the chamber. The thing is, if you look at the thread, the idea going around is to shoot the intruder under any circumstances.

 

 

Simulating the sound of a gunshot is only going to make the target think you mean to kill him when you don't. A verbal ultimatum would work better than a false start. Most firearms, unlike in the movies, don't fire blanks and bullets interchangabely in any case. Automatics require a blank firing attachment and a weaker action spring if they're going to be operated by gas alone.

 

It's a bit bold to assume that simulating the sound of a gunshot is only going to make the target think you mean to kill him. If that was the only response a target would have, warning shots would not be utilized by police or military forces. I'll admit, I've never been in a situation where I'd need to coerce someone with a weapon, but I'd be very surprised if firing a warning shot would not demonstrate illicit a fear response from the intruder.

 

And I was unaware of any significant differences between blank rounds. Obviously my idea would have limited success.

[Aram]

If that was the only response a target would have, warning shots would not be utilized by police or military forces.

 

I seriously doubt any law enforcement officers are trained or even allowed to fire warning shots. There's too much risk in firing a bullet in a public area to waste one making noise. Everything's different in the military, but I chances are that if you're immediately threatening the life of a soldier, that warning shot is going to hit somebody in the sternum.

[Sand]

Warning shots are a waste of time and there is too much of a chance of an innocent getting hurt. If you are going to shoot a gun, make sure your intended target is struck and only your intended target is struck.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Sand