Political Crossfire Forums

[britboy]

leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: Airo - I would argue that gun owners live in more fear than non-gun owners.

Especially in the states where they could have a gun if they wanted .. people that choose not to have them, for right or wrong, are surely by definition living in less fear than those that do feel they need them ...?

Do people with spare tires live in fear of having a flat? Do people with life insurance live in fear of dying? Do people that go to the dentist live in fear of cavities?

hmm yea good point. (Although I live in fear of cavities!) :!oops:

So, can I take it you use preventative measures?

Yes. But I don't need to lock my toothpaste in a box under the bed, spend money on learning how to use it and no-one's going to break in specifically to steal it, my kid isn't going to blow his face off by using it incorrectly etc. etc. so don't think about using this as a comparison!!

[Blinky]

[quote="airo"] Blinky wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: airo wrote:

I wear a belt every day, unless (Such as today.) i'm wearing pants that have some sort of tightening system built in.

Most people i know wear belts every day.

That said, why should they remove their belts, then their holsters? I mean, can you give any good reason that they should disarm themselves upon entering their homes? It is a slight hassle, especially is they enter and leave their houses more than 2 times daily.

Woah, slow down there, airo. I never said they should have to remove their holsters. I just think it laughable and tragic that they feel the need to.


airo wrote: As i stated, realistically, they're just as likely to need their firearm in their house as they would on the street, and the idealogical reason to carry in both places is the same, so why should they remove their firearms upon entering their homes?

To appease you?

Just as likely to need them at home as on the street? Really? Despite the lockable door and brick walls and everything?
Why not wear a bullet-proof vest around the kitchen and to bed? I mean, you just never know...

I've already stated that a few months ago two armed men kicked in a door and shot a man dead.

One of the most common forms of home invasion start with a knock at the door.

It happens, and, realistically, it's just as likely to happen as being mugged at the ATM, or being carjacked at a red light.

Lets stop there, airo. "Realistically"? How about statistically? If you can find a source for a neighbourhood in the USA where in-home murders occur in greater numbers than murders outside one's own home, I will conceed that a gun is necessary for self defence at home in said neighbourhood.
Get cracking, my friend!


airo wrote: Wait, why are murders the only thing i'm to defend my homestead against?

Ok - lets use your example. Provide a credible source that states that more people are home invaded, than mugged or car-jacked.
Get cracking, my friend!




airo wrote: I think it's rather hilarious that anti-gunner try to paint people as sniveling, pathetic little men who cower in fear at even the smallest noise.

There's a difference between living in fear, and being prepared.

You're quite right. And so I lock my door accordingly.

airo wrote: As far as home invaders intent on just removing property from my house... Someone who breaks into your house is intent on one thing: victimizing you. You, as a human being, have a right to stand up, and refuse to be a victim. Unfortunately, far too many people, people like you, are content with sitting back and being victims. In fact, it's people like you who enable crime to happen. Criminals thrive on people who allow themselves to be victims.

Wow. You have wound yourself right up here airo. Nobody in society is content with being a victim - thus, we have empowered law enforcement officers and our courts with the duty of seeing that criminals do not go unpunished. You are no more qualified to be judge, jury and executioner than I, yet you advocate a right to do just that.
In a civilised society, a punishments must fit the crime, and I don't think a bullet in the head is appropriate for burglary. And at the point in time when you claim you would shoot a burglar, that is all they are. You don't know their reason for wanting to burgle your house, and given you preferred course of action, may never know.
Therein lies the fundamental problem with chest-beaters such as yourself taking the law into your own hands.


airo wrote: If everyone stood up, and defended themselves, and their property, crime would be nonexistent. Instead, there's people like you who say "It's only my T.V." or "It's only my car!", and allow criminals to do what they want with them. It's sickening.

If everyone went out and bought a gun in the interest of home protection, it would not spell an end to the financial woes of people desperate to make their money selling stolen goods. It would simply mean that they would arm themselves in preperation, and shoot first/ask questions later if they felt threatened.

Thats what you don't seem able to grasp. You have a situation much like the cold war where everybody is arming themselves in order to have one-up on their adversary. You get a gun, so the guy who decides to burgle you will get a gun.

This is not a theory airo - it can be seen in practice in the United States of America. You have made aquiring a firearm so easy that virtually anybody can get access to one. We have burglaries where I live too. Armed burglaries here are a rare occurance. It is literally "safer" getting burgled here than in the US.
Criminals in the US are using once-legal firearms to commit crimes and your solution is to produce more legal firarms to combat the situation.
Even mice in labs learn after a while that if they step on the little red leaver that it admininsters an electric shock. Eventually, through a process called classical conditioning, they learn not to step on it. Other modern, industrialised nations (notably Australia) are catching on and tightening gun laws. As a result they are enjoying reduced rates of gun crime. Its not rocket science, just common sense.

[leftneckredwing]

britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: Airo - I would argue that gun owners live in more fear than non-gun owners.

Especially in the states where they could have a gun if they wanted .. people that choose not to have them, for right or wrong, are surely by definition living in less fear than those that do feel they need them ...?

Do people with spare tires live in fear of having a flat? Do people with life insurance live in fear of dying? Do people that go to the dentist live in fear of cavities?

hmm yea good point. (Although I live in fear of cavities!) :!oops:

So, can I take it you use preventative measures?

Yes. But I don't need to lock my toothpaste in a box under the bed, spend money on learning how to use it and no-one's going to break in specifically to steal it, my kid isn't going to blow his face off by using it incorrectly etc. etc. so don't think about using this as a comparison!!

The comparison is preparedness and defending against contingencies.

So, use it I will.

You could kill yourself changing a flat on the autobahn or any major highway.

There's different types of burglaries. There's the type where they break in and leave in a very short time and there's the another one where they steal absolutely everything including the curtain rods.

[britboy]

leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: Airo - I would argue that gun owners live in more fear than non-gun owners.

Especially in the states where they could have a gun if they wanted .. people that choose not to have them, for right or wrong, are surely by definition living in less fear than those that do feel they need them ...?

Do people with spare tires live in fear of having a flat? Do people with life insurance live in fear of dying? Do people that go to the dentist live in fear of cavities?

hmm yea good point. (Although I live in fear of cavities!) :!oops:

So, can I take it you use preventative measures?

Yes. But I don't need to lock my toothpaste in a box under the bed, spend money on learning how to use it and no-one's going to break in specifically to steal it, my kid isn't going to blow his face off by using it incorrectly etc. etc. so don't think about using this as a comparison!!

The comparison is preparedness and defending against contingencies.

So, use it I will.

You could kill yourself changing a flat on the autobahn or any major highway.

There's different types of burglaries. There's the type where they break in and leave in a very short time and there's the another one where they steal absolutely everything including the curtain rods.

There are different types .. theres the type where they break in, the owner runs, then recieves a nice cheque from the insurance company

There's the type where the owner decides to have a deadly gunfight to the death to protect his microwave oven, and is laughed at when he reaches the pearly gates and has to explain he died over a $40 microwave and can no longer support his family.

Theres the type where the burgler only broke in to steal the weapons -- so, no weapons, no crime would have happened.

Theres the type where the intruder gets shot in the face, only for the home defender to realise it was his son paying him a suprise visit ..

Yep -- lot's of different types of burgleries indeed .. Im' glad we agree.

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: airo wrote:

I wear a belt every day, unless (Such as today.) i'm wearing pants that have some sort of tightening system built in.

Most people i know wear belts every day.

That said, why should they remove their belts, then their holsters? I mean, can you give any good reason that they should disarm themselves upon entering their homes? It is a slight hassle, especially is they enter and leave their houses more than 2 times daily.

Woah, slow down there, airo. I never said they should have to remove their holsters. I just think it laughable and tragic that they feel the need to.


airo wrote: As i stated, realistically, they're just as likely to need their firearm in their house as they would on the street, and the idealogical reason to carry in both places is the same, so why should they remove their firearms upon entering their homes?

To appease you?

Just as likely to need them at home as on the street? Really? Despite the lockable door and brick walls and everything?
Why not wear a bullet-proof vest around the kitchen and to bed? I mean, you just never know...

I've already stated that a few months ago two armed men kicked in a door and shot a man dead.

One of the most common forms of home invasion start with a knock at the door.

It happens, and, realistically, it's just as likely to happen as being mugged at the ATM, or being carjacked at a red light.

Lets stop there, airo. "Realistically"? How about statistically? If you can find a source for a neighbourhood in the USA where in-home murders occur in greater numbers than murders outside one's own home, I will conceed that a gun is necessary for self defence at home in said neighbourhood.
Get cracking, my friend!


Wait, why are murders the only thing i'm to defend my homestead against?

Quote:
airo wrote: So, you feel it's sad that one provides the ability to defend themselves? Do you advocate that people stand up to oppression, or that they allow themselves to become victims?

No, I feel it tragic that people like you are so worried that any day now their door will be kicked down and they'll be shot by someone who doesn't mind upgrading their charge from break and enter to first degree murder when all they really wanted was you DVD player. And that is what we're talking about here, because unless they have a sepcific and pre-meditated reason for just killing you, airo, chances are they are there to burgle you and nothing more. They may not have even realised you were home.

I think it's rather hilarious that anti-gunner try to paint people as sniveling, pathetic little men who cower in fear at even the smallest noise.

There's a difference between living in fear, and being prepared. If you can't see the difference, then i don't really have anything more to say to you, because you're incapable of understanding my argument.

As far as home invaders intent on just removing property from my house... Someone who breaks into your house is intent on one thing: victimizing you. You, as a human being, have a right to stand up, and refuse to be a victim. Unfortunately, far too many people, people like you, are content with sitting back and being victims. In fact, it's people like you who enable crime to happen. Criminals thrive on people who allow themselves to be victims. If everyone stood up, and defended themselves, and their property, crime would be nonexistent. Instead, there's people like you who say "It's only my T.V." or "It's only my car!", and allow criminals to do what they want with them. It's sickening.


Airo - I would argue that gun owners live in more fear than non-gun owners.

Especially in the states where they could have a gun if they wanted .. people that choose not to have them, for right or wrong, are surely by definition living in less fear than those that do feel they need them ...?

And you'd be wrong.

Again, there's a difference between living in fear, and being prepared.

Just because I, or someone else, choose to be prepared for a statistically improbable eventuality that would leave me dead, and you don't, doesn't mean i'm living in fear, terrified that it will happen.

In fact, i'd actually say the exact opposite. To some extent, i take confidence in my preparedness, whereas you're completely unaware of what such a feeling is like.

[leftneckredwing]

Quote:
There are different types .. theres the type where they break in, the owner runs, then recieves a nice cheque from the insurance company

There's the type where the owner decides to have a deadly gunfight to the death to protect his microwave oven, and is laughed at when he reaches the pearly gates and has to explain he died over a $40 microwave and can no longer support his family.

Theres the type where the burgler only broke in to steal the weapons -- so, no weapons, no crime would have happened.

Theres the type where the intruder gets shot in the face, only for the home defender to realise it was his son paying him a suprise visit ..

Yep -- lot's of different types of burgleries indeed .. Im' glad we agree.

So if I keep nothing in my house that is when I would be most safe.

You're method requires voluntary poverty and a meaningless life of existing in a state of fear that holds the tenet of 'if you have nothing you have nothing to fear'. You're only response is to just give it all up cuz otherwise someone will break in and shoot you if you bother to defend yourself.

Anyway you cut it, that is a gutless, meaningless life with the express purpose of living in perpetual fear by responding with voluntary poverty.

[airo]

[quote="Blinky"] airo wrote: Blinky wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: airo wrote:

I wear a belt every day, unless (Such as today.) i'm wearing pants that have some sort of tightening system built in.

Most people i know wear belts every day.

That said, why should they remove their belts, then their holsters? I mean, can you give any good reason that they should disarm themselves upon entering their homes? It is a slight hassle, especially is they enter and leave their houses more than 2 times daily.

Woah, slow down there, airo. I never said they should have to remove their holsters. I just think it laughable and tragic that they feel the need to.


airo wrote: As i stated, realistically, they're just as likely to need their firearm in their house as they would on the street, and the ideological reason to carry in both places is the same, so why should they remove their firearms upon entering their homes?

To appease you?

Just as likely to need them at home as on the street? Really? Despite the lockable door and brick walls and everything?
Why not wear a bullet-proof vest around the kitchen and to bed? I mean, you just never know...

I've already stated that a few months ago two armed men kicked in a door and shot a man dead.

One of the most common forms of home invasion start with a knock at the door.

It happens, and, realistically, it's just as likely to happen as being mugged at the ATM, or being carjacked at a red light.

Lets stop there, airo. "Realistically"? How about statistically? If you can find a source for a neighbourhood in the USA where in-home murders occur in greater numbers than murders outside one's own home, I will conceed that a gun is necessary for self defence at home in said neighbourhood.
Get cracking, my friend!


airo wrote: Wait, why are murders the only thing i'm to defend my homestead against?

Ok - lets use your example. Provide a credible source that states that more people are home invaded, than mugged or car-jacked.
Get cracking, my friend!


http://www.ci.champaign.il.us/public_safety/pscs.php

Please compare, "Home Invasion" and "First-Degree Murder."

Granted, you don't know much background on the crimes listed, but since when are statistics ever actually used in context?

Quote:
airo wrote: I think it's rather hilarious that anti-gunner try to paint people as sniveling, pathetic little men who cower in fear at even the smallest noise.

There's a difference between living in fear, and being prepared.

You're quite right. And so I lock my door accordingly.

There's a saying among police...

"Locks are only meant to keep the honest people out."

Again, you're living in a fantasy world where everything bad always happens to everyone else but you. Not only that, but you're living in a state of false security.

If that's how you choose to live, that's fine, but, by all means, at least accept that you're completely helpless should someone choose to make you their next victim, and don't live behind some sort of false sense of security, saying "Oh, the police will protect me!" or "Oh, my locked door will stop them!"

Quote: airo wrote: As far as home invaders intent on just removing property from my house... Someone who breaks into your house is intent on one thing: victimizing you. You, as a human being, have a right to stand up, and refuse to be a victim. Unfortunately, far too many people, people like you, are content with sitting back and being victims. In fact, it's people like you who enable crime to happen. Criminals thrive on people who allow themselves to be victims.

Wow. You have wound yourself right up here airo. Nobody in society is content with being a victim - thus, we have empowered law enforcement officers and our courts with the duty of seeing that criminals do not go unpunished. You are no more qualified to be judge, jury and executioner than I, yet you advocate a right to do just that.
In a civilised society, a punishments must fit the crime, and I don't think a bullet in the head is appropriate for burglary. And at the point in time when you claim you would shoot a burglar, that is all they are. You don't know their reason for wanting to burgle your house, and given you preferred course of action, may never know.
Therein lies the fundamental problem with chest-beaters such as yourself taking the law into your own hands.


Average response time in my area is 10 to 15 minutes. I've actually had times where i've called 911, and NEVER had an officer show up, and when i called back, the dispatcher told me there was no record that i ever called. These people are supposed to protect me?

And, i'm not sure what you're saying? Are you saying you have no need to defend yourself because the police are there? I don't know, but that sounds sort of... idiotic.

Similarly to you don't know the motivations of a bugler, you have no way to read their mind, and understand their intent, either. You don't know if he plans to rape your wife after browsing your wares, or if he's even armed. The only thing you're capable of knowing is there's a strange man stumbling around inside your house.

And, as far as the punishment not fitting the crime, if he's intent on invading my home, and stealing my property, defiling some of my primal rights in the process, why don't i have the jurisdiction to protect said rights? Unfortunately, in modern society, the punishments, more often then not, don't fit the crime. We live in a society where murderers and rapists can enter into a prison, and leave a few years later, and a judge, who we consider some sort of moralistic holy man, is the sole determiner of how people should be punished. As long as punishments AREN'T being waged accordingly, and we still have a revolving door system, then i will still take the utmost caution whenever i hear someone bumping around in my house at night.

Quote: airo wrote: If everyone stood up, and defended themselves, and their property, crime would be nonexistent. Instead, there's people like you who say "It's only my T.V." or "It's only my car!", and allow criminals to do what they want with them. It's sickening.

If everyone went out and bought a gun in the interest of home protection, it would not spell an end to the financial woes of people desperate to make their money selling stolen goods. It would simply mean that they would arm themselves in preperation, and shoot first/ask questions later if they felt threatened.

Thats what you don't seem able to grasp. You have a situation much like the cold war where everybody is arming themselves in order to have one-up on their adversary. You get a gun, so the guy who decides to burgle you will get a gun.

And that's fine. If he chooses to arm himself, i will be BETTER with my gun then he is his. I've said it numerous times on these forums, a responsibility of the armed American is being trained with their firearms, everyone of them.

And, i'm sorry, but i think it's people like you, who say "Oh, that bugler rummaging through my stuff is just looking for something to sell, let's let him take whatever he wants!" are enabling crime. Do you honestly think the average crack fiend would take it upon themselves to mug someone if every other person they mugged would fight back? Do you honestly think they have that much back bone?

There would still be people who did commit crimes, yes. But those people already are committing crimes. I'll give you a hint, they're called murderers. They kill people whilst they commit crimes now, they will do so if guns are banned, and they would do so if every single person was carrying. They're the reason it's imperative you're trained with your firearm, because if your lives EVER cross paths, you would wish you were. Of course, i don't need to point out the specifics of it, but using your ideology, where the police are the only form of self-defense you have. you would wind up dead from such an encounter, whereas i at least have a chance at coming out breathing. That alone is enough for me.

Also, you're making a mistake assuming one should "shoot first and ask questions later". One of the cardinal rules of firearms is "Know your target". Such an act would be completely against this rule. Identify, and if the intruder is armed, and unwilling to give up said arm, engage until you and your family are safe.

Quote: This is not a theory airo - it can be seen in practice in the United States of America. You have made aquiring a firearm so easy that virtually anybody can get access to one. We have burglaries where I live too. Armed burglaries here are a rare occurance. It is literally "safer" getting burgled here than in the US.
Criminals in the US are using once-legal firearms to commit crimes and your solution is to produce more legal firarms to combat the situation.
Even mice in labs learn after a while that if they step on the little red leaver that it admininsters an electric shock. Eventually, through a process called classical conditioning, they learn not to step on it. Other modern, industrialised nations (notably Australia) are catching on and tightening gun laws. As a result they are enjoying reduced rates of gun crime. Its not rocket science, just common sense.

Didn't Australia ban swords, as well, because of a surge in sword-related crime, when the local bar flys switched weapons of choice to use in bar fights?

Is England safer then the United States? Possibly. Is it because of guns? No. I've said it before, the United States has social dynamics that unprecedented in a Western Nation, and an impoverished class that, in some places, can actually be reminiscent of a third world nation. I'm no expert in socioeconomics, nor do i pretend to know the exact answer on why America has a more violent culture, but it simply does. Purposing that it's the fault of an inanimate object is ludicrous, and the idea that we can simply "ban guns" and all our problems will go away, even more so. Not even going into the logistical factors, and how such a ban would be completely impossible and unethical to do, (The man power that it would take to enforce such a ban, the amount of people we'd have to imprison, the amount of people we'd have to fight to keep the ban enforced, the amount of jobs that would be utterly destroyed by the a ban, etc. etc.) but the ideological message you're sending is just wrong (That people don't have a right to defend their lives, or their property, and that they should rely on the government for all things.), and the actual idea behind such a ban is fubar, at best. (Yes, if we take away their weapons, they'll stop fighting! They won't possibly use OTHER weapons, no, they're too dumb for that!)

[TNBiologist]

Blinky wrote: TNBiologist wrote: [quote="Blinky
Just as likely to need them at home as on the street? Really? Despite the lockable door and brick walls and everything?
Why not wear a bullet-proof vest around the kitchen and to bed? I mean, you just never know...

Do you ever leave your door open let some light in the house? or how about putting up a window to let a breeze in so you don't have to run your airconditioner as much?

All the time. Do I ever strap a gun on to do so? Never.
Do most Australians leave their doors open from time to time? Yes. Carry guns around the house? Never.

What kind of neighbourhood do you think you live in TN?[/quote]

I nice enough area. I brought up what I did because you said Quote: Just as likely to need them at home as on the street? Really? Despite the lockable door and brick walls and everything?
Why not wear a bullet-proof vest around the kitchen and to bed? I mean, you just never know
I was pointing out that not everuone wnats to keep their doors locks and their windoes closed all the time. If I lived in a bad area, I would consider arming myself while at home.

[Lucky Luke]

airo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: airo wrote:

More like, they have holsters that they CCW outside of their home with, and they don't undo their belts, and remove them as soon as they step through their door.

Two or so months ago a man had his door kicked in, and was shot dead infront of his wife. His house was then robbed.

A gun, like any other tool, is only good if you have access to it. What good is a knife if you need to cut something and it's not in your hand?

As your little story shows, the American robber is coming with a gun and will shoot first, how guns can save your life when guns are the ones killing you?

:-D
:-D

One word: Training.

I WILL be better then any **** who wants to illegally set foot on my property.

There's more to being a responcible firearm owner then just owning firearms. Part of being responcible is being trained. Similarly to actually having your weapon available to you, your weapon is no good if you are no good with it. If you cannot draw it efficiently, aquire a target quickly, fire a string of shots fast and accurately, and then reload your firearm, you may as well not even carry it, because if you do need it, there's nothing you can do with it.

The majority of people who would use their illegal firearms illegally against you aren't trained. They don't shoot regularly, nor can they even do so accurately. They don't know what tactics and mindset are, and in a jam, the only thing they're concerned with is getting your wallet, or your woman. It's your responcibility as a firearm owner to not only be equipped to stop tem from getting to either of those, but to also be better trained, and mentally sharper. If you aren't, don't even bother carrying a gun, because the best you can do is get someone innocent hurt.

Innocent people get hurt by irresponsable gun lovers, I have an easy solution for that.

:-D
:-D

[Winchester]

Lucky Luke wrote:

Innocent people get hurt by irresponsable gun lovers, I have an easy solution for that.

:-D
:-D

Shoot them?

Heck innocent people get hurt by irresponsible car lovers, got the same solution for that?

[britboy]

airo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: airo wrote:

More like, they have holsters that they CCW outside of their home with, and they don't undo their belts, and remove them as soon as they step through their door.

Two or so months ago a man had his door kicked in, and was shot dead infront of his wife. His house was then robbed.

A gun, like any other tool, is only good if you have access to it. What good is a knife if you need to cut something and it's not in your hand?

As your little story shows, the American robber is coming with a gun and will shoot first, how guns can save your life when guns are the ones killing you?

:-D
:-D

One word: Training.

I WILL be better then any **** who wants to illegally set foot on my property.

There's more to being a responcible firearm owner then just owning firearms. Part of being responcible is being trained. Similarly to actually having your weapon available to you, your weapon is no good if you are no good with it. If you cannot draw it efficiently, aquire a target quickly, fire a string of shots fast and accurately, and then reload your firearm, you may as well not even carry it, because if you do need it, there's nothing you can do with it.

The majority of people who would use their illegal firearms illegally against you aren't trained. They don't shoot regularly, nor can they even do so accurately. They don't know what tactics and mindset are, and in a jam, the only thing they're concerned with is getting your wallet, or your woman. It's your responcibility as a firearm owner to not only be equipped to stop tem from getting to either of those, but to also be better trained, and mentally sharper. If you aren't, don't even bother carrying a gun, because the best you can do is get someone innocent hurt.

So Airo -- if you arn't as well trained and as 'mentally sharp' as your local burgler -- don't bother carrying a gun?

Tactics? Mindset? Aquiring a target quickly? Mate -- you've just woken up at 3am in the morning because some nob-end wants your playstation. What are you gonna do? a commando roll out of your bed whilst simultaneously loading three pistols? Then think about operational awareness and tactical sustainability of firepower whilst flanking the enemy?

What a load of BS. You'll be sh*t-scared (if you've got any sense), and you'll creep around with your gun in exactly the same way I did when, aged 11, I used to play 'A-team'.

Me, personally, I put my money on the guy thats full time been practising burglary for 5 years straight. He does it for a living. Every night. He's not one bit as scared as you. He has done all the same training you have and a load more practical experience, and isn't groggy and fearful for his family. In fact .. hate to break it to you . but if he's remotely worried about your 'Special Delta force small firearm tactic removal squad (consisting of you creeping round in your jim-jams)' he'll just call up a couple of his mates to cover him. 4 vs 1. You lose again.

[Lucky Luke]

Winchester wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:

Innocent people get hurt by irresponsable gun lovers, I have an easy solution for that.

:-D
:-D

Shoot them?

Heck innocent people get hurt by irresponsible car lovers, got the same solution for that?

Yes:



We ban them from driving, we take their license back from them.
:-D
:-D

[Blinky]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: airo wrote:

More like, they have holsters that they CCW outside of their home with, and they don't undo their belts, and remove them as soon as they step through their door.

Two or so months ago a man had his door kicked in, and was shot dead infront of his wife. His house was then robbed.

A gun, like any other tool, is only good if you have access to it. What good is a knife if you need to cut something and it's not in your hand?

As your little story shows, the American robber is coming with a gun and will shoot first, how guns can save your life when guns are the ones killing you?

:-D
:-D

One word: Training.

I WILL be better then any **** who wants to illegally set foot on my property.

There's more to being a responcible firearm owner then just owning firearms. Part of being responcible is being trained. Similarly to actually having your weapon available to you, your weapon is no good if you are no good with it. If you cannot draw it efficiently, aquire a target quickly, fire a string of shots fast and accurately, and then reload your firearm, you may as well not even carry it, because if you do need it, there's nothing you can do with it.

The majority of people who would use their illegal firearms illegally against you aren't trained. They don't shoot regularly, nor can they even do so accurately. They don't know what tactics and mindset are, and in a jam, the only thing they're concerned with is getting your wallet, or your woman. It's your responcibility as a firearm owner to not only be equipped to stop tem from getting to either of those, but to also be better trained, and mentally sharper. If you aren't, don't even bother carrying a gun, because the best you can do is get someone innocent hurt.

So Airo -- if you arn't as well trained and as 'mentally sharp' as your local burgler -- don't bother carrying a gun?

Tactics? Mindset? Aquiring a target quickly? Mate -- you've just woken up at 3am in the morning because some nob-end wants your playstation. What are you gonna do? a commando roll out of your bed whilst simultaneously loading three pistols? Then think about operational awareness and tactical sustainability of firepower whilst flanking the enemy?

What a load of BS. You'll be sh*t-scared (if you've got any sense), and you'll creep around with your gun in exactly the same way I did when, aged 11, I used to play 'A-team'.

Me, personally, I put my money on the guy thats full time been practising burglary for 5 years straight. He does it for a living. Every night. He's not one bit as scared as you. He has done all the same training you have and a load more practical experience, and isn't groggy and fearful for his family. In fact .. hate to break it to you . but if he's remotely worried about your 'Special Delta force small firearm tactic removal squad (consisting of you creeping round in your jim-jams)' he'll just call up a couple of his mates to cover him. 4 vs 1. You lose again.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
You seem to be under the impression, Airo, that only "law-abiding" gun owners bother to train with their weapons. Why is that? Because it supports your ideology? Don't you think that if you were going to make your living breaking into the homes of people who own firearms, and assuming you wanted to live, that you might at some point consider learning how to use the gun you take with you?
Majority of people who use firearms illegally aren't trained? Bollocks. You gonna drag a BS statistic up to prove that? Of course not, because they don't exist and you are clutching at straws. How old are you Airo?

[Winchester]

Lucky Luke wrote: Winchester wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:

Innocent people get hurt by irresponsable gun lovers, I have an easy solution for that.

:-D
:-D

Shoot them?

Heck innocent people get hurt by irresponsible car lovers, got the same solution for that?

Yes:



We ban them from driving, we take their license back from them.
:-D
:-D

Ahh, but that only keeps the law abiding citizens from driving because they voluntarily do so. Crap even in my small town it's a weekly occurrence that someone is caught driving without a valid license and insurance. The reason they do this Lucky is because they are dangerous drivers who have shown they can't responsibly drive, have had their license confiscated, their cars impounded and they are such a risk that insurance companies won't cover them. But guess what they still manage to get cars and get behind the wheel time and again.

So try again.

[Otacon]

Once again it seems that logic has failed Lucky.

[lilwolf]

Quite often some of his logic fails. He just cannot admit it or does not see it. But it is fun to watch him get B- slapped now and then.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: airo wrote:

More like, they have holsters that they CCW outside of their home with, and they don't undo their belts, and remove them as soon as they step through their door.

Two or so months ago a man had his door kicked in, and was shot dead infront of his wife. His house was then robbed.

A gun, like any other tool, is only good if you have access to it. What good is a knife if you need to cut something and it's not in your hand?

As your little story shows, the American robber is coming with a gun and will shoot first, how guns can save your life when guns are the ones killing you?

:-D
:-D

One word: Training.

I WILL be better then any **** who wants to illegally set foot on my property.

There's more to being a responsible firearm owner then just owning firearms. Part of being responsible is being trained. Similarly to actually having your weapon available to you, your weapon is no good if you are no good with it. If you cannot draw it efficiently, aquire a target quickly, fire a string of shots fast and accurately, and then reload your firearm, you may as well not even carry it, because if you do need it, there's nothing you can do with it.

The majority of people who would use their illegal firearms illegally against you aren't trained. They don't shoot regularly, nor can they even do so accurately. They don't know what tactics and mindset are, and in a jam, the only thing they're concerned with is getting your wallet, or your woman. It's your responcibility as a firearm owner to not only be equipped to stop tem from getting to either of those, but to also be better trained, and mentally sharper. If you aren't, don't even bother carrying a gun, because the best you can do is get someone innocent hurt.

So Airo -- if you arn't as well trained and as 'mentally sharp' as your local burgler -- don't bother carrying a gun?

Tactics? Mindset? Aquiring a target quickly? Mate -- you've just woken up at 3am in the morning because some nob-end wants your playstation. What are you gonna do? a commando roll out of your bed whilst simultaneously loading three pistols? Then think about operational awareness and tactical sustainability of firepower whilst flanking the enemy?

What a load of BS. You'll be sh*t-scared (if you've got any sense), and you'll creep around with your gun in exactly the same way I did when, aged 11, I used to play 'A-team'.

Me, personally, I put my money on the guy thats full time been practising burglary for 5 years straight. He does it for a living. Every night. He's not one bit as scared as you. He has done all the same training you have and a load more practical experience, and isn't groggy and fearful for his family. In fact .. hate to break it to you . but if he's remotely worried about your 'Special Delta force small firearm tactic removal squad (consisting of you creeping round in your jim-jams)' he'll just call up a couple of his mates to cover him. 4 vs 1. You lose again.

I take it you've never trained in any specific martial art, firearm related or otherwise. Would that be a correct assumption?

Training mostly involves inscribing actions and reactions into muscle memory, so you don't need to think. Target acquisition and assessment should be second nature, as should the act of shooting in general. That said, you shouldn't be "thinking" about how to react at 3 in the morning when you hear something go bump in the night, you should just act. If you're trained properly, you shouldn't need to think about it.

Did you know that in the majority of police shootings the officers involved NEVER remember using their sights? Training. Acting, not thinking.

I just read how a person was taking a class. In the middle of one of the drills, his firearm suffered a failure. He cleared the failure, and continued firing without even realizing what he had done until after the drill was over. Training.

Cognitive thoughts and actions go out the door in a tight spot, and training and instinct take over, in that order. That's why training is important. Otherwise, panic takes over, and, more often than not, the untrained individual locks up. I've seen people who've never live-sparred before go into a full-contact match and literally go into the fetal position because they didn't know how to react, and weren't trained sufficiently.

You don't know what you're talking about, and i'd advise you stop posting on the issue of "training" ;)

And yes, if you don't bother being skilled with your firearms, i don't believe you should be carrying. I've never advocated that everyone and their mother should be allowed to CCW, and, in fact, i've actually argued to make the process of acquiring a permit harder, forcing a CCW holder to qualify yearly. As i've said before, if you aren't trained with your firearm, more then likely you'll only get yourself, or another innocent hurt if you try and employ it.

[airo]

Blinky wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: airo wrote:

More like, they have holsters that they CCW outside of their home with, and they don't undo their belts, and remove them as soon as they step through their door.

Two or so months ago a man had his door kicked in, and was shot dead infront of his wife. His house was then robbed.

A gun, like any other tool, is only good if you have access to it. What good is a knife if you need to cut something and it's not in your hand?

As your little story shows, the American robber is coming with a gun and will shoot first, how guns can save your life when guns are the ones killing you?

:-D
:-D

One word: Training.

I WILL be better then any **** who wants to illegally set foot on my property.

There's more to being a responcible firearm owner then just owning firearms. Part of being responcible is being trained. Similarly to actually having your weapon available to you, your weapon is no good if you are no good with it. If you cannot draw it efficiently, aquire a target quickly, fire a string of shots fast and accurately, and then reload your firearm, you may as well not even carry it, because if you do need it, there's nothing you can do with it.

The majority of people who would use their illegal firearms illegally against you aren't trained. They don't shoot regularly, nor can they even do so accurately. They don't know what tactics and mindset are, and in a jam, the only thing they're concerned with is getting your wallet, or your woman. It's your responcibility as a firearm owner to not only be equipped to stop tem from getting to either of those, but to also be better trained, and mentally sharper. If you aren't, don't even bother carrying a gun, because the best you can do is get someone innocent hurt.

So Airo -- if you arn't as well trained and as 'mentally sharp' as your local burgler -- don't bother carrying a gun?

Tactics? Mindset? Aquiring a target quickly? Mate -- you've just woken up at 3am in the morning because some nob-end wants your playstation. What are you gonna do? a commando roll out of your bed whilst simultaneously loading three pistols? Then think about operational awareness and tactical sustainability of firepower whilst flanking the enemy?

What a load of BS. You'll be sh*t-scared (if you've got any sense), and you'll creep around with your gun in exactly the same way I did when, aged 11, I used to play 'A-team'.

Me, personally, I put my money on the guy thats full time been practising burglary for 5 years straight. He does it for a living. Every night. He's not one bit as scared as you. He has done all the same training you have and a load more practical experience, and isn't groggy and fearful for his family. In fact .. hate to break it to you . but if he's remotely worried about your 'Special Delta force small firearm tactic removal squad (consisting of you creeping round in your jim-jams)' he'll just call up a couple of his mates to cover him. 4 vs 1. You lose again.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
You seem to be under the impression, Airo, that only "law-abiding" gun owners bother to train with their weapons. Why is that? Because it supports your ideology? Don't you think that if you were going to make your living breaking into the homes of people who own firearms, and assuming you wanted to live, that you might at some point consider learning how to use the gun you take with you?
Majority of people who use firearms illegally aren't trained? Bollocks. You gonna drag a BS statistic up to prove that? Of course not, because they don't exist and you are clutching at straws. How old are you Airo?

I shoot hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition a month. I know people who shoot ten times MORE than me.

I would say the overwhelming majority of people who'd consider invading my home, or my rights, don't practice anywhere near as I, or some of the other shooters i know, do.

I mean, since they are robbing me, i'd bet they were out on their luck a little, if you know what i mean.

Do you know how much ammo costs? Look it up ;)

I shoot around 500 rounds of centerfire ammunition per range trip, and another 500-800 of rimfire ;)

If they had the money to shoot anywhere near as much as i, they wouldn't need to be breaking into my house so they can buy their next bag of crack.

Again, you two are talking about things you don't have any clue about. You don't know much about CCWing, you don't know much about training with firearms, and you don't know much about the general American shooter.

I'd stop while i was behind if i was either of you.

[airo]

Oh, and if training is so pointless, why do countless high speed operators, civilian contractors, elite military personel, QRT/TAC members, martial artists, and civilians in general spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and man hours on it every year?

I mean, it sounds like you two have a better idea of how to prepare people for the fight then over three thousand years of martial tradition, so, by all means, why don't you explain to me this system of yours, and how it's better then actually training. I mean, if you're so SURE that EVERY martial artist, professional soldier, and SWAT LEO is wrong, why don't you go out and start your own school on how your method can prepare them better then actually training. I'm sure you'd both make millions!

[britboy]

airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: airo wrote:

More like, they have holsters that they CCW outside of their home with, and they don't undo their belts, and remove them as soon as they step through their door.

Two or so months ago a man had his door kicked in, and was shot dead infront of his wife. His house was then robbed.

A gun, like any other tool, is only good if you have access to it. What good is a knife if you need to cut something and it's not in your hand?

As your little story shows, the American robber is coming with a gun and will shoot first, how guns can save your life when guns are the ones killing you?

:-D
:-D

One word: Training.

I WILL be better then any **** who wants to illegally set foot on my property.

There's more to being a responsible firearm owner then just owning firearms. Part of being responsible is being trained. Similarly to actually having your weapon available to you, your weapon is no good if you are no good with it. If you cannot draw it efficiently, aquire a target quickly, fire a string of shots fast and accurately, and then reload your firearm, you may as well not even carry it, because if you do need it, there's nothing you can do with it.

The majority of people who would use their illegal firearms illegally against you aren't trained. They don't shoot regularly, nor can they even do so accurately. They don't know what tactics and mindset are, and in a jam, the only thing they're concerned with is getting your wallet, or your woman. It's your responcibility as a firearm owner to not only be equipped to stop tem from getting to either of those, but to also be better trained, and mentally sharper. If you aren't, don't even bother carrying a gun, because the best you can do is get someone innocent hurt.

So Airo -- if you arn't as well trained and as 'mentally sharp' as your local burgler -- don't bother carrying a gun?

Tactics? Mindset? Aquiring a target quickly? Mate -- you've just woken up at 3am in the morning because some nob-end wants your playstation. What are you gonna do? a commando roll out of your bed whilst simultaneously loading three pistols? Then think about operational awareness and tactical sustainability of firepower whilst flanking the enemy?

What a load of BS. You'll be sh*t-scared (if you've got any sense), and you'll creep around with your gun in exactly the same way I did when, aged 11, I used to play 'A-team'.

Me, personally, I put my money on the guy thats full time been practising burglary for 5 years straight. He does it for a living. Every night. He's not one bit as scared as you. He has done all the same training you have and a load more practical experience, and isn't groggy and fearful for his family. In fact .. hate to break it to you . but if he's remotely worried about your 'Special Delta force small firearm tactic removal squad (consisting of you creeping round in your jim-jams)' he'll just call up a couple of his mates to cover him. 4 vs 1. You lose again.

I take it you've never trained in any specific martial art, firearm related or otherwise. Would that be a correct assumption?

Training mostly involves inscribing actions and reactions into muscle memory, so you don't need to think. Target acquisition and assessment should be second nature, as should the act of shooting in general. That said, you shouldn't be "thinking" about how to react at 3 in the morning when you hear something go bump in the night, you should just act. If you're trained properly, you shouldn't need to think about it.

Did you know that in the majority of police shootings the officers involved NEVER remember using their sights? Training. Acting, not thinking.

I just read how a person was taking a class. In the middle of one of the drills, his firearm suffered a failure. He cleared the failure, and continued firing without even realizing what he had done until after the drill was over. Training.

Cognitive thoughts and actions go out the door in a tight spot, and training and instinct take over, in that order. That's why training is important. Otherwise, panic takes over, and, more often than not, the untrained individual locks up. I've seen people who've never live-sparred before go into a full-contact match and literally go into the fetal position because they didn't know how to react, and weren't trained sufficiently.

You don't know what you're talking about, and i'd advise you stop posting on the issue of "training" ;)

And yes, if you don't bother being skilled with your firearms, i don't believe you should be carrying. I've never advocated that everyone and their mother should be allowed to CCW, and, in fact, i've actually argued to make the process of acquiring a permit harder, forcing a CCW holder to qualify yearly. As i've said before, if you aren't trained with your firearm, more then likely you'll only get yourself, or another innocent hurt if you try and employ it.

Whoa Airo -- you are arguing for the anti-gun lobby here you realise!

It is nice to see you joining the ranks of the anti-gun people .. welcome aboard.

So let's have a summary of your current anti-gun policies you are advocating:

1) It should be harder to aquire a CCW permit, we should force a CCW holder to quality yearly. Cool. Watch out .. all the pro-gunners will be stating you're taking away their rights and all that rubbish -- but don't worry, we'll stick together and fend them off.
2) People that have less training or gun ability than a potential intruder should not own a weapon. Cool again. A potential intruder could involve a soldier that has spent the last 8 years practicing with his firearm. If you're not better than him, when you're in your jim-jams at 3am, -- get rid of your firearm! Again we agree! Wow together we're gonna have to think of a practical way to stockpile all these weapons that should be given in to the authorities.
3) Training mostly involves inscribing actions and reactions into muscle memory, so you don't need to think. WOW! Anyone that needs to think when using their firearm should not have one. If you NEED to think whilst using a firearm, you are not sufficiently trained. I LOVE IT! This is more radically anti gun THAN ANYONE I HAVE READ ON THIS BOARD! I have never known anyone to shoot a gun without thinking. You've swept up jsut about every gun owner in the US in the 'shouldn't ACTUALLY have a gun' statement. Wow! I aspire to you radical anti-gun stance!

So far you've stated about 99.99% of all US gun holders shouldn't actually be holding guns! You've gone beyond the LL school of thought! Welcome aboard.

Honestly, in all seriousness, I hate to say it but you've been watching too much goofy 80s TV. You see how many of your fellow gun supporters really believe the gun handler shouldn't have to think about what he's doing. This whole 'Pure instinct Ninja school of feeling at power with the gun and letting subconscious thought take you into a state of harmony with your surroundings' line of thought -- I mean come on -- its a load of BS. Don't ask me -- ask the pro-gun lot. Ask them how many of them want to stop thinking whilst using their gun and, in fact, are TRAINED to not need to think. I dare you .. I double dare you. :lol: