You know what sucks about killing in self-defense? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

Crompsin · 12-17-2007, 02:50 PM

*dumps Gatorade on his face*

I'll be with ya in a minute. I feel like we've gone over this crap in other threads.

Strange Famous · 12-17-2007, 03:02 PM

Ive been robbed.

I KNOW I wouldnt kill someone to get my stuff back

moot1337 · 12-18-2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You know what sucks about killing in "self-defense", explained as a home invasion/robbery? Someone has to die because you don't want them to have your shitty 18" Awex color TV and rabbit ears. What sucks is that some people just can't wait to get their gun off because they have some terrible misunderstanding of how humans are supposed to treat other humans. They have no concept of the value of human life. That sucks.

^^It's not about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I would like to again say, and agree with those who have said, I would rather than any article of my property taken from me before I would kill a man.

^^It's not about this, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

It is about someone breaking into your house. If they break into your house with a lethal weapon (large knife, firearm) or pose a lethal threat (big man vs. your tiny wife) they should be neutralized. They've already committed two felonies just by showing up in your living room with a weapon.

^^getting warmer....

Okay, I've previously had a comment typed out for this thread and deleted it because I didn't feel it was necessary. Clearly it is. There's a huge misconception going on in this thread at the moment - that all gun owners are bloodthirsty and just want to shoot someone for breaking into their house and stealing their stuff.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Responsible gun owners are simply people who have realized that there are people in this world who have no regard for the sanctity of human life. Many of these people are criminals, most of whom are armed, and think the best way of getting ph4t l3wt is to rob someone's house or place of business. These people don't care if you live or die, or how you do so. Need a little reality check? Please watch this video:

You Tube

Alright, so I'll fess up: I own a handgun right now, and plan on owning at least one more, along with a good rifle. Once I get a CCW permit, I'll be carrying almost every day, helping to deter would be criminals, and generally making the world a safer place with no one the wiser (bless states which are shall-issue).The purpose of these weapons is to STOP, not to KILL. Killing the target may be a consequence of stopping them, but that is something that is a given when using ANY weapon against someone. As soon as there's a weapon created that will instantly shut down the central nervous system of a target with 100% reliability, guaranteed not to kill, and with the capability to follow up in case of misses (what does stress and adrenaline do to you?), I'll take 3. Until then, I favor a rifle. Guns can kill, dogs can kill, tasers can kill (and have), swords and knives can kill (and are very likely to). If you're not prepared to kill someone when using a tool capable of deadly force, you have no business bringing it to a fight, for it is just as likely to be taken from you. If you're not prepared to make that decision should it arise, you will falter, and you will die.

The point I'm trying to make is that I will NOT use lethal force to stop someone from stealing my stuff, or to retrieve said stuff. That's what insurance is for. However, if I'm home, and someone, uninvited, is rummaging through my house or garage, they have made it my business, and I will investigate these felonies being committed on my property. I will be armed, and I will be PREPARED to use lethal force, in case they escalate the situation. There is NOTHING to stop a criminal with no regard for life from killing somebody just 'cuz. You may give them everything they want, and afterwards they may just as soon injure or kill you, for any reason - a show of strength, to avoid witnesses, just for fun, or for no reason at all. It's impossible to guess the motives of someone who does not think the same as normal human beings. This, in my mind, and in self defense laws, makes their lives immediately less valuable than mine and the lives of others once the intent of lethal force has been shown by them.

Gun owners recognize this - they have made the conscious decision that if someone is threatening them or any other human with lethal force, the necessary action is to STOP them from carrying through with their intentions. We must realize that stopping them has a likely chance of their death, and thus their lives are worth less than the lives of others once force is shown. That was the criminal's decision, and that's sadly the way they made things have to be.

Contrary to popular belief, few, if any, gun owners actually want to pull the trigger on someone - all it means is a world of hassle. The firearm used gets taken away immediately, we're probably arrested, our names get in papers, we must go through legal processes and fees, we may suffer hearing loss from firing said weapon, and our house has had blood shed in it - all of this costs a ton of money and grief, so anyone wanting it to happen to them is just nuts. The thing is, though, we're prepared to go through all that anyway, just to protect life. The ONLY thing that will make me pull the trigger on another human is the threat of equal force.

There is also a side of that video of the Texas shooting which is missing. The media likes to make excuses for not showing the whole story, such as because of violent or traumatic content. The thing is, there's so much violence in our society that we're desensitized to it anyway - they're really deleting these things to influence people's opinions on important issues, like the right to self defense (duh

). The thing about that video is that they didn't show that he went outside with his shotgun, announced his presence loudly and his ability to use force - he didn't just shoot them in the back out of cold blood. After announcing "Move, you're dead." to the robbers, there was a pause, and then the gunshots - it's possible (and likely) that he was acting in self defense at this point, if the robbers did not respond to his threat and reached for something instead. If so, at this point he was not defending his neighbors property, he was defending himself. Watch the video with shots here:

You Tube

The only difference between this shooting and the other story in this thread ( http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6697.html ) is that it was his neighbors property, and the criminals didn't do EXACTLY what the man wielding the shotgun ordered.

I'll end this post with a quote that I'm especially fond of:

"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized. The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Crompsin · 12-18-2007, 04:49 AM

Excellent post, Moot. I feel like I've said the same things over and over in these kinds of debates. The human factor always seems to be tilted the wrong way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moot1337

...that gun owners are bloodthirsty and just want to shoot someone for breaking into their house and stealing their stuff.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Optimistic opinion at best. Don't generalize. Plenty of idiots own firearms, hence the "accidents" and other crimes committed by typically lawful owners. I'm progun as all get-out, but I'm just sayin'... owning a gun doesn't change who you are as a person. Good people own guns, morons own guns, bad people own guns. They're simply tools.

moot1337 · 12-18-2007, 01:14 PM

Edited to add 2 words to make it not a complete generalization... yeh caught me at 3 in the mornin

Originally I tried to eliminate that later in the post, but it's probably better for it not to be so broad in the first place.

Anyway, further comments: the neighbor who went out with his shotgun and ended up killing the two robbers - I would tip my hat to him, depending on the situation. Perhaps he didn't know if his neighbor was home, and not only wanted to stop the robbery, but wanted to make sure his neighbor was alright, and not bleeding to death from the crooks' assault. I think that either way he gets "neighbor of the year" award... Once enough cases like this happen, perhaps people will think twice about breaking in to another person's home, whether or not they're home, and expecting to get away scott-free and unharmed.

They will in Texas, at least ^_^

I also disagree that owning a gun doesn't change you as a person - at least not for me, anyway. Before owning one and considering defending myself and others from deadly force, I had never seriously thought that other people's lives could be worth less than mine or those around me. Once you have the capability to return deadly force, it's something you have to examine pretty carefully. Sure, you see the death penalty used and hear about cops killing bad guys all the time, but once that decision is in your hands it really makes you think seriously about the subject. Do certain actions merit the immediate demise of the perpetrator of those actions? I have decided it to be true that other lives are worth less once deadly force has been shown - it's best to decide that now, instead of when/if the moment comes to use that force. It's sobering, to say the least.

I'm not saying that owning one immediately qualifies you to use one, but many people that do own them have thought these thoughts, and get extensive training in their use because of it. Just because there are idiots and bad people who own guns doesn't mean that they're the only ones

dksuddeth · 12-18-2007, 03:34 PM

First off, taking a life while defending you and yours isn't something easily forgotten, however, It is YOU who must make the decision of whether the one or four assholes who busted down your door just want your TV or want your little girl as a plaything.

Second, if in shooting back at home invaders, you inadvertantly kill your neighbor, case law SHOULD hold the home invaders responsible. This is usually not the case though because we still have bleeding heart pro criminal and anti self defense politicians who will prosecute YOU because you had the temerity to defend yourself instead of submitting like a little peon and letting paid agents of the state clean up your dead body.

Thirdly, if you find yourself faced with either beheading your opponent or sticking a 3 foot piece of steel through his rib cage, always hold the blade parralel to the ground so it doesn't jam itself between the bones.

Crompsin · 12-18-2007, 03:45 PM

First point: I concur completely with your perspective on family defense.

Second point: Arguing fault is like arguing the shape of the universe. You can do it, but no one can ever really be 100% sure.

Third: If all I have is a sword? I'm telling the guy I got a shotgun.

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Second, if in shooting back at home invaders, you inadvertantly kill your neighbor, case law SHOULD hold the home invaders responsible. This is usually not the case though because we still have bleeding heart pro criminal and anti self defense politicians who will prosecute YOU because you had the temerity to defend yourself instead of submitting like a little peon and letting paid agents of the state clean up your dead body.

Your explaining how you killed an innocent person because you were incapable of defending your house without a deadly weapons is... temerity? You know that temerity means "recklessness", right? And what if your neighbors shoot back in clearly necessary self defense? How many people are you willing to put at risk because you're sure that Johnny Robber is there to rape and murder instead of make off with your shitty TV?

I hope your neighbors all have very, very thick walls. And I hope they don't have your temerity.

Crompsin · 12-18-2007, 03:47 PM

Will, I bought you an Uzi for x-mas.

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 03:51 PM

Aren't those Israeli? Damn it, you've got me googling guns again...

dksuddeth · 12-18-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Your explaining how you killed an innocent person because you were incapable of defending your house without a deadly weapons is... temerity?

NO. My statement concerning 'temerity' is how your anti-self defense politician or AG is going to spin it. In OTHER situations, where subjects act like obedient little sheep, the 'criminal' gets tried for any and all deaths as a result of his criminal act. It should also apply if said criminal invades your home and your neighbors death is a result of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You know that temerity means "recklessness", right?

of course, which is why my context of its usage was based on someone like chuck schumers statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

And what if your neighbors shoot back in clearly necessary self defense? How many people are you willing to put at risk because you're sure that Johnny Robber is there to rape and murder instead of make off with your shitty TV?

I guess I could take it on faith that my tv is all they wanted, then apologize to my daughter after 14 hours of sodomy by saying 'I thought they were just going to take the tv baby.'

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I guess I could take it on faith that my tv is all they wanted, then apologize to my daughter after 14 hours of sodomy by saying 'I thought they were just going to take the tv baby.'

No one said anything about faith, but if you hold a gun to someone, just hold it, not open fire, you actually stand a chance of finding out his or her intentions. But who wants that? Kill the fucker! He's going to rape and kill everyone!

Baraka_Guru · 12-18-2007, 07:22 PM

You know what would suck about killing in self-defense? If it were your spouse.

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

You know what would suck about killing in self-defense? If it were your spouse.

wtf...

Baraka_Guru · 12-18-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

wtf...

"...the World Health Organization [found] that 40-70% of female murder victims in Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States were killed by intimate partners."

jorgelito · 12-18-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moot1337

^^It's not about this.

^^It's not about this, either.

^^getting warmer....

Okay, I've previously had a comment typed out for this thread and deleted it because I didn't feel it was necessary. Clearly it is. There's a huge misconception going on in this thread at the moment - that all gun owners are bloodthirsty and just want to shoot someone for breaking into their house and stealing their stuff.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Responsible gun owners are simply people who have realized that there are people in this world who have no regard for the sanctity of human life. Many of these people are criminals, most of whom are armed, and think the best way of getting ph4t l3wt is to rob someone's house or place of business. These people don't care if you live or die, or how you do so. Need a little reality check? Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vA4gQU7fBs

Alright, so I'll fess up: I own a handgun right now, and plan on owning at least one more, along with a good rifle. Once I get a CCW permit, I'll be carrying almost every day, helping to deter would be criminals, and generally making the world a safer place with no one the wiser (bless states which are shall-issue).The purpose of these weapons is to STOP, not to KILL. Killing the target may be a consequence of stopping them, but that is something that is a given when using ANY weapon against someone. As soon as there's a weapon created that will instantly shut down the central nervous system of a target with 100% reliability, guaranteed not to kill, and with the capability to follow up in case of misses (what does stress and adrenaline do to you?), I'll take 3. Until then, I favor a rifle. Guns can kill, dogs can kill, tasers can kill (and have), swords and knives can kill (and are very likely to). If you're not prepared to kill someone when using a tool capable of deadly force, you have no business bringing it to a fight, for it is just as likely to be taken from you. If you're not prepared to make that decision should it arise, you will falter, and you will die.

The point I'm trying to make is that I will NOT use lethal force to stop someone from stealing my stuff, or to retrieve said stuff. That's what insurance is for. However, if I'm home, and someone, uninvited, is rummaging through my house or garage, they have made it my business, and I will investigate these felonies being committed on my property. I will be armed, and I will be PREPARED to use lethal force, in case they escalate the situation. There is NOTHING to stop a criminal with no regard for life from killing somebody just 'cuz. You may give them everything they want, and afterwards they may just as soon injure or kill you, for any reason - a show of strength, to avoid witnesses, just for fun, or for no reason at all. It's impossible to guess the motives of someone who does not think the same as normal human beings. This, in my mind, and in self defense laws, makes their lives immediately less valuable than mine and the lives of others once the intent of lethal force has been shown by them.

Gun owners recognize this - they have made the conscious decision that if someone is threatening them or any other human with lethal force, the necessary action is to STOP them from carrying through with their intentions. We must realize that stopping them has a likely chance of their death, and thus their lives are worth less than the lives of others once force is shown. That was the criminal's decision, and that's sadly the way they made things have to be.

Contrary to popular belief, few, if any, gun owners actually want to pull the trigger on someone - all it means is a world of hassle. The firearm used gets taken away immediately, we're probably arrested, our names get in papers, we must go through legal processes and fees, we may suffer hearing loss from firing said weapon, and our house has had blood shed in it - all of this costs a ton of money and grief, so anyone wanting it to happen to them is just nuts. The thing is, though, we're prepared to go through all that anyway, just to protect life. The ONLY thing that will make me pull the trigger on another human is the threat of equal force.

There is also a side of that video of the Texas shooting which is missing. The media likes to make excuses for not showing the whole story, such as because of violent or traumatic content. The thing is, there's so much violence in our society that we're desensitized to it anyway - they're really deleting these things to influence people's opinions on important issues, like the right to self defense (duh

). The thing about that video is that they didn't show that he went outside with his shotgun, announced his presence loudly and his ability to use force - he didn't just shoot them in the back out of cold blood. After announcing "Move, you're dead." to the robbers, there was a pause, and then the gunshots - it's possible (and likely) that he was acting in self defense at this point, if the robbers did not respond to his threat and reached for something instead. If so, at this point he was not defending his neighbors property, he was defending himself. Watch the video with shots here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYQ4s...eature=related

The only difference between this shooting and the other story in this thread ( http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6697.html ) is that it was his neighbors property, and the criminals didn't do EXACTLY what the man wielding the shotgun ordered.

I'll end this post with a quote that I'm especially fond of:

"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized. The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Excellent post Moot, beautifully written and well thought out, thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Will, I bought you an Uzi for x-mas.

I think a shotgun may be better for home defense.

And yes will, it was invented by an Israeli.

Willravel · 12-18-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

"...the World Health Organization [found] that 40-70% of female murder victims in Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States were killed by intimate partners."

Oh crap you weren't kidding.

, indeed.

Crompsin · 12-18-2007, 08:48 PM

So the spousal accidental homicide rate and the divorce rate are roughly the same?

Intriguing.

Fire · 12-18-2007, 11:52 PM

In my town we recently had a murder- a 50 year old grandmother working as a night clerk at a hotel was robbed- she handed over the money, and was then raped,sodomized, and brutally murdered by her 21 year old attacker......
Wil- you are clearly articulate, intelligent, and have as I understand it, been involved in violent incidents- and have chosen a radically different belief system than most of the people that I know who have been involved in similar situations - I respect your convictions, but having dealt with more than a few violently inclined people, I feel that your approach is naive- You, I fear, give people too much credit for being reasonable, perhaps because you are reasonable- To me, a person who chooses to break into my house is a mortal threat to my family, and I cannot trust them to stop at a point that a reasonable professional criminal might- like any responsible gun owner, I do not fire blindly, nor am I a bloodthirsty killer- I will always identify my target and what is behind it (including my neighbors houses) and given that a burglar does not attempt to attack me when confronted, I will gladly hold them at gunpoint for the police- But I will not allow someone to endanger my family so I can claim the moral high ground- hell, in my own mid sized college town, 2/3's of the home invasions we have had resulted in the homeowner being killed- not great odds for me letting them take the T.V.

HedwigStrange · 12-19-2007, 12:28 AM

You know what really sucks about killing in self defense: most women aren't taught how to do it!

As I read this thread, being the over-analyzing feminist cow that I am, I noticed a trend. Young daughters and "little" wives seem to come up rather a lot as subjects of defense. Now, I'm sure that you all are nice, enlightened people. Maybe you've just caught a particularly resistant strain of patriarchalsocietitis. I say this because none of you seem to have realized that the best way to defend women is to give them the means to defend themselves. Enough quibbling over how you should decide whether or not an intruder intends to rape your loved ones. Circumvent the problem by training women to defend themselves. Then if the intruder tries to pull her pants off, your little wife can blow off his head, instead of waiting for you to play he-man defender-of-the-family.

Now, I know it isn't as if gun training isn't available for women, but if you talk about women as if they can't defend themselves, and tell them they don't need to because you will protect them, then women feel as if they don't have to learn these things, and in the end, that hurts everyone. Cut it out! Consider the implications of the way you talk about women!

In the case of young children incapable of handling guns, I think sufficient argument has already been made. If you're going to take responsibility for someone's life, it is a greater evil to risk the life of your ward than risk the life of an intruder. You can't exactly play 20 questions with Johnny Robber over a cup of tea, and waiting to see what happens beyond announcing your presence and telling the robber to leave is an invitation for them to snatch the child and use it as a shield.

As a further aside, I think that parents with teenaged daughters (say 14 and up) should consider giving them a gun for protection (along with extensive training). I know this seems like a risky proposition, but I think we tend to give teenaged girls too little credit. Yes, we can be giggly idiot-bags, but we have a right to self defense, we generally have the level of responsibility needed to control weapons, and we are much more likely to need to be able to defend ourselves.

In closing, if nothing else can illustrate my point about women needing to be able to defend themselves (and I would contend that guns are most effective for women who do not have large physical stature or amazing martial skillz), Barakaguru's statistic should really grind it in: the self-proclaimed protectors of women, their husbands and boyfriends, are the ones most likely to kill them.

12-17-2007, 02:50 PM	#41 (permalink)
Crompsin STRIKE FACE Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Prime Self	*dumps Gatorade on his face* I'll be with ya in a minute. I feel like we've gone over this crap in other threads. __________________ C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3 All your base are belong to us.

12-17-2007, 03:02 PM	#42 (permalink)
Strange Famous Adam The Word King Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ipswich, UK	Ive been robbed. I KNOW I wouldnt kill someone to get my stuff back __________________ "Lying in bed on a summer morning, with the window open, listening to the church bells, eating buttered toast with cunty fingers.” (unknown man, on what it meant to be English)

12-18-2007, 01:14 PM	#45 (permalink)
moot1337 Crazy Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Learning to Fly...	Edited to add 2 words to make it not a complete generalization... yeh caught me at 3 in the mornin Originally I tried to eliminate that later in the post, but it's probably better for it not to be so broad in the first place. Anyway, further comments: the neighbor who went out with his shotgun and ended up killing the two robbers - I would tip my hat to him, depending on the situation. Perhaps he didn't know if his neighbor was home, and not only wanted to stop the robbery, but wanted to make sure his neighbor was alright, and not bleeding to death from the crooks' assault. I think that either way he gets "neighbor of the year" award... Once enough cases like this happen, perhaps people will think twice about breaking in to another person's home, whether or not they're home, and expecting to get away scott-free and unharmed. They will in Texas, at least ^_^ I also disagree that owning a gun doesn't change you as a person - at least not for me, anyway. Before owning one and considering defending myself and others from deadly force, I had never seriously thought that other people's lives could be worth less than mine or those around me. Once you have the capability to return deadly force, it's something you have to examine pretty carefully. Sure, you see the death penalty used and hear about cops killing bad guys all the time, but once that decision is in your hands it really makes you think seriously about the subject. Do certain actions merit the immediate demise of the perpetrator of those actions? I have decided it to be true that other lives are worth less once deadly force has been shown - it's best to decide that now, instead of when/if the moment comes to use that force. It's sobering, to say the least. I'm not saying that owning one immediately qualifies you to use one, but many people that do own them have thought these thoughts, and get extensive training in their use because of it. Just because there are idiots and bad people who own guns doesn't mean that they're the only ones __________________ And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. Oh, certainly, sir.

12-18-2007, 03:34 PM	#46 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: bedford, tx	First off, taking a life while defending you and yours isn't something easily forgotten, however, It is YOU who must make the decision of whether the one or four assholes who busted down your door just want your TV or want your little girl as a plaything. Second, if in shooting back at home invaders, you inadvertantly kill your neighbor, case law SHOULD hold the home invaders responsible. This is usually not the case though because we still have bleeding heart pro criminal and anti self defense politicians who will prosecute YOU because you had the temerity to defend yourself instead of submitting like a little peon and letting paid agents of the state clean up your dead body. Thirdly, if you find yourself faced with either beheading your opponent or sticking a 3 foot piece of steel through his rib cage, always hold the blade parralel to the ground so it doesn't jam itself between the bones. __________________ "On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." thomas jefferson

12-18-2007, 03:45 PM	#47 (permalink)
Crompsin STRIKE FACE Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Prime Self	First point: I concur completely with your perspective on family defense. Second point: Arguing fault is like arguing the shape of the universe. You can do it, but no one can ever really be 100% sure. Third: If all I have is a sword? I'm telling the guy I got a shotgun. __________________ C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3 All your base are belong to us.

12-18-2007, 03:47 PM	#49 (permalink)
Crompsin STRIKE FACE Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Prime Self	Will, I bought you an Uzi for x-mas. __________________ C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3 All your base are belong to us.

12-18-2007, 03:51 PM	#50 (permalink)
Willravel [wil-ruh-VEL] Join Date: Aug 2004	Aren't those Israeli? Damn it, you've got me googling guns again... __________________ ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

12-18-2007, 07:22 PM	#53 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru In the 6th percentile Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto	You know what would suck about killing in self-defense? If it were your spouse. __________________ Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. —Leonardo da Vinci Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot

12-18-2007, 08:48 PM	#58 (permalink)
Crompsin STRIKE FACE Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Prime Self	So the spousal accidental homicide rate and the divorce rate are roughly the same? Intriguing. __________________ C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3 All your base are belong to us.

12-18-2007, 11:52 PM	#59 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Join Date: May 2003 Location: missouri	In my town we recently had a murder- a 50 year old grandmother working as a night clerk at a hotel was robbed- she handed over the money, and was then raped,sodomized, and brutally murdered by her 21 year old attacker...... Wil- you are clearly articulate, intelligent, and have as I understand it, been involved in violent incidents- and have chosen a radically different belief system than most of the people that I know who have been involved in similar situations - I respect your convictions, but having dealt with more than a few violently inclined people, I feel that your approach is naive- You, I fear, give people too much credit for being reasonable, perhaps because you are reasonable- To me, a person who chooses to break into my house is a mortal threat to my family, and I cannot trust them to stop at a point that a reasonable professional criminal might- like any responsible gun owner, I do not fire blindly, nor am I a bloodthirsty killer- I will always identify my target and what is behind it (including my neighbors houses) and given that a burglar does not attempt to attack me when confronted, I will gladly hold them at gunpoint for the police- But I will not allow someone to endanger my family so I can claim the moral high ground- hell, in my own mid sized college town, 2/3's of the home invasions we have had resulted in the homeowner being killed- not great odds for me letting them take the T.V. __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens