shoot him in the pinky toe and go elope

2/12/2006 6:53:25 PM

dude, maybe he's also really looking to see how you act when asks you a question. if/when you disagree with him, just don't be a smartass to him. probably natural for him to still want to be protective of his daughter, whether it's misplaced or not.

2/12/2006 6:59:15 PM

Quote :

"for Joe Schmoe in suburbia, it's a toy. If Joe buys this toy, thinking it's a tool, he's going to end up misusing it."

This is true, except when Joe learns how to use it as a tool. If he trains with it, he is not going to misuse it. You seem to have missed this part: "but with the right training and safety precautions"

2/12/2006 7:05:16 PM

so i guess no one has real facts

2/12/2006 7:10:53 PM

i guess it's kinda hard to have facts about all the people not killed accidentally

2/12/2006 7:31:21 PM

There are no real facts in regards to this issue. It's too heated and all studies will have some bias.

It's your house, your decision.

2/12/2006 8:19:34 PM

could you pick an apple off your gf's head?

2/12/2006 8:49:21 PM

durr, sure a guy breaking and entering isnt innocent, but are you gonna say that shooting him is fine if you feel even remotely threatened. im sure it isnt a black and white issue when it comes to getting charged. i bet if you killed some 15 year old who broke in to steal some booze there'd be a bit of interest there.

either way equating breaking and entering to shooting someone (especially without warning) is ludicrous.

2/12/2006 9:15:11 PM

^ whose house are you casing right now

2/12/2006 9:18:51 PM

Quote :

" ^ that kind of nonesense shows you really are FeebleMinded the thread was originally about home self-defense and statistics about it "

In the post you were referring to I was joking. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on the sarcasm. Feel free to read the rest of my posts in this thread, as all of those were serious in nature.

2/12/2006 9:28:04 PM

Quote :

"yes im too stupid to believe everyone is allowed to shoot anyone who commits a crime"

You aren't allowed to shoot someone commiting a crime, however, in the state of North Carolina you can use deadly force against an intruder in your home if you have reason to believe the intruder intends you or an occupant of your home harm or you feel they intend to commit a felony (such as rob you).

Quote :

"14-51.1.  Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (a)       A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence. (b)       A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section. (c)       This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law."

Quote :

"but are you gonna say that shooting him is fine if you feel even remotely threatened. im sure it isnt a black and white issue when it comes to getting charged. i bet if you killed some 15 year old who broke in to steal some booze there'd be a bit of interest there."

In north carolina, you have a duty to retreat outside your home.

Inside your home, you have no duty to retreat and you may use any force you deem nessesary. The key wording in all of this is reasonable. If somone is rattling your door knob testing to see if it's open, throwing the door open and blowing them away is not reasonable. However, it's fairly reasonable to assume that a person who has broken into your house intends you harm.

2/12/2006 10:17:55 PM

^ Ding-ding! We have a winner.

2/12/2006 10:22:28 PM

Indubitably

2/12/2006 10:30:28 PM

i appreciate the effort here.
but this is more the type of stuff im looking for.

Quote :

"Been watching TV recently? Or picked up a magazine? You've probably seen a TV spot with Ed Asner ("Lou Grant") speaking in somber tones, or a full-page ad in Time or The National Enquirer, warning you about gun violence. This campaign is being run by a group calling itself Cease Fire, and they're trying to convince you that keeping a gun at home is more likely to cause harm to you or to someone in your family than it's likely to protect you from a criminal who invades your home. Ed Asner tells you about a young boy who "accidentally" shoots his brother with a handgun he's been playing with. Of course Asner doesn't mention that, according to the National Safety Council, firearms accidents account for only 3 percent of accidental deaths for children aged 14 or under -- far fewer deaths than those due to auto accidents, drownings, or fires. Cease Fire's ads claim that a gun kept in the home increases the chance of a homicide in that home by three times. Of course they never mention that, according to the 1993 National Self Defense Survey conducted by criminologists at Florida State University, 1.7 million times each year a gun kept in the home protects an American family from a criminal intruder. That's 216 times more often than a gun kept in the home takes the life of a an innocent resident of that home. That's the whole trick which advocates of banning guns use to convince the public that guns are too dangerous to keep around. They just choose what they think will scare you the most. They never tell you what Paul Harvey calls "the rest of the story." Statistics are funny things. They tell you only what you ask them about. Suppose you wanted to convince people that guns are too dangerous to keep in their houses. You'd look at death statistics until you noticed that while lots of Americans who commit suicide at home do it with a gun, very few criminals who break into houses are killed with guns. So you'd take these suicides and just for good luck throw in the occasional accidental gun death and family murder which uses a gun, and -- lo and behold! -- you have a "study" by Dr. Arthur Kellermann published in the June 12, 1986 New England Journal of Medicine which says that a gun kept in the home for protection is 43 times as likely to kill a family member than to kill a burglar. By the time the news media are done with their spin-doctoring, pundits tell us that a gun kept in the home is 43 times as likely to murder a family member than to protect you from a burglar. I'm not exaggerating. A few weeks ago I participated in a TV news discussion of gun control with Molly Selvin, who sits on the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, and Sandy Cooney of Handgun Control, Inc. Molly Selvin misquoted that Kellermann article in precisely that way. Of course Molly Selvin probably never read Kellermann's article closely enough to discover that 37 of those 43 non- burglars are those Americans who used a gun to kill themselves. She undoubtedly is also unaware that five separate studies of suicide show that people who are determined to kill themselves just choose another way to die if their first choice isn't available. In a study by Rich et al reported in the March, 1990 issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry, Canadians who wanted to commit suicide but found guns harder to come by due to recent gun control instead jumped off bridges. The unavailability of guns was statistically irrelevant. Further, in Japan it's almost impossible for anyone to get hold of a gun, yet twice as many Japanese kill themselves than Americans. Cease Fire's campaign doesn't tell you that in the overwhelming majority of cases where a gun is used in defense against a criminal, the gun is never even fired, much less is used to shoot or kill the criminal. So if you're only counting up the criminals killed by guns for your comparison, as did Kellermann, you're leaving out all the criminals who didn't complete their intended crime -- burglary, rape, or even a serial murder -- because the criminal's intended victim had a gun and was prepared to use it in defense. The funny thing about the people who tell you these statistics is that even when you prove to them that their statistics are deceitful, they still refuse to believe it. So, when two criminologists at Florida State University released the results that the National Self Defense Survey had determined 2.45 million private gun defenses in America during the preceding year (the 1.7 million is just those that occurred in or around the gun-defender's own home), gun-ban advocates did everything they could to attack the results. In that same TV news show with Molly Selvin and me, Handgun Control, Inc.'s, Sandy Cooney called the National Self Defense Survey "obscene" and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Mind you, since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers -- in fact he's a liberal Democrat -- it appears that Kleck's only sin is doing research which produces results that challenges the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., and Cease Fire."

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

2/13/2006 12:21:24 AM

Quote :

"On that program opposite me, when I argued defensive-gun-use statistics from the National Self Defense Survey, Cooney charged that Kleck, the lead criminologist who designed the study, had kept changing his figures. That is simply wrong. Kleck had previously only analyzed the results of a dozen surveys conducted by others including Democratic Party pollsters and Time magazine. This had already produced estimates of a million gun defenses per year. Kleck included his analysis in his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991). When Kleck analyzed the data from the National Self Defense Survey, he found that the number of yearly gun-defenses was simply higher than previously reported due to the incompleteness of each of the previous surveys, none of which attempted to quantify gun defenses comprehensively. Cooney also charged that the results of the National Self Defense Survey had never been peer-reviewed. But it was my fault that he believed that. In 1993 when the survey was first conducted, I convinced Gary Kleck to give me preliminary results of the survey in a newspaper interview I did with him, because his previous analysis was being widely quoted in other news articles. Dr. Kleck generously allowed me to include some of these figures in my interview with him in the September 19, 1993 Orange County Register [*] and these preliminary results, drawn from my interview, were widely quoted, including in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime in March, 1995. Because of the slowness of the academic publishing and peer- review process, the formal report on the survey titled "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, was only just published in Northwestern University Law School's Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume 86, Number 1, Summer, 1995 issue ... and it wasn't actually printed until December, 1995. If that's not tediously slow enough for you, I spoke to Dr. Kleck today, January 3, 1996 ... and he still hasn't received his personal copy in the mail. But the foremost criminologist in the country, Dr. Marvin Wolfgang -- who has been a consistent advocate of banning guns -- wrote in that issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology that the National Self Defense Survey was indeed conducted properly and that he (Wolfgang) must revise his opinions on the common usefulness of firearms in defense accordingly. That, Mr. Cooney, is called "peer review." Because I was one of the first laymen to discuss the results of the National Self Defense Survey with Dr. Kleck, and consequently have been thinking about these results for longer than other writers, every once in a while I've been calling Dr. Kleck and asking for other comparisons between the criminal uses of guns and their defensive uses. Usually, Dr. Kleck would either tell me the figures were in his book Point Blank, or he told me that nobody had studied the particular question I was asking and, to the best of his knowledge, nobody knew the answer. Today I did somewhat better. I said to Dr. Kleck, "We're always being told by gun-ban advocates that the majority of homicides in this country are committed with guns. Has anybody looked at the percentage of justifiable homicides committed with guns ... that is, a number which tells us how often guns are legitimately used by a private individual to kill a criminal in self-defense as opposed to other types of weapons?" It turned out that these figures were available. At my request, Dr. Kleck today took them out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's "Supplementary Homicide Reports public use tapes," distributed by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248. According to Dr. Kleck's analysis of this FBI data reporting civilian (non-police) justifiable homicides in the United States between 1976 and 1991, 87.3 percent of justifiable homicides are accomplished using a gun. Of those justifiable homicides where the type of gun was recorded, 78.6 percent of these justifiable homicides was conducted with a handgun. Compare this with homicides in general (65.1 percent use a gun) or other-than-justifiable civilian homicides, where only 64.7 percent of the homicides involved the use of a gun. So here's a brand new sound bite for you, courtesy of my question today to Dr. Kleck, and his analysis of FBI statistics: "Almost nine out of ten times that Americans had to kill a criminal in defense, they used a gun. And that's about 25 percent more often than guns are the weapon of choice for a murder." Got all that, Ed Asner? "Lou Grant" always told the truth. You may not be a newspaperman, but you played one on TV. I'm eagerly awaiting the TV spots in which you do what newspapers do when they learn they've made a mistake: issue a retraction and inform the American people that you didn't tell them the whole story. "

[/quote]

2/13/2006 12:21:45 AM

Quote :

"In north carolina, you have a duty to retreat outside your home. Inside your home, you have no duty to retreat and you may use any force you deem nessesary."

I think all states should do what Florida just did:

In 2005, the law changed such that a law-abiding citizen is under no obligation to retreat from an attack when he is in a location where he has a right to be. Since the vast majority of citizens are seldom in illegal locations, the new law effectively grants Floridians the right to protect themselves virtually anywhere. Even states as gun-phobic as New York, follow the same general principle with regard to the duty to retreat. A law-abiding person has a duty to retreat from an attack but only if retreat can be accomplished safely. A New York law passed in 1965 says that a person is not required to retreat unless he can do so "with complete safety to himself and others." A 2002 Michigan Supreme Court ruling said, "A person is never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce and violent attack, nor is he required to retreat from an attacker who he reasonably believes [is] about to use a deadly weapon." It's simply not logical to expect a terrified person to weigh the relative merits of fight vs. flight in the blink of an eye. As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

2/13/2006 7:45:28 AM

okay well she first better be trained to use the gun. A gun in an untrained person's hands is usless. I also believe that having a gun in the house is fine. I have some where I live and if someone tried to break in i would shoot them. However if its in the day time in North Carolina you can not just shoot a someone for breaking into your house. They have to have shown a weapon and you must feel your life is at risk. At night time you can shoot anyone who breaks into your home because they are considered armed and having intent to hurt you. This of course is only in applies to whether or not you might go to jail. The person's family can still sue you in civil court. best option is to just call cops and avoid confrontation.

2/13/2006 8:51:06 AM

Quote :

"However if its in the day time in North Carolina you can not just shoot a someone for breaking into your house. At night time you can shoot anyone who breaks into your home because they are considered armed and having intent to hurt you"

Where the hell does this crap come from?

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ]

2/13/2006 10:09:58 AM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=307166

That is about the only statistic I need for keeping a gun in my house. I have heard plenty of stories similar to that one (actually carrying the gun as a deterent rather than a knife). Of course, I live in Fayettenam...so I gotta watch my back, B.

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 10:25 AM. Reason : s]

2/13/2006 10:22:11 AM

Mr Grace,

I don't normally post on TWW (long time reader though). This is a hot issue for me though. My best recommendation would be to read "The Bias Against Guns" by John Lott. It is a dry read (I didn't make it through more than half of it) but it has real research/numbers to back up the rhetoric. Obviously, this book is not objective, but it probably has the kind of TRUE information you're looking for. Also, I found this website http://www.johnlott.org/. It looks like you can sign up for a username/password and download some of the data.

Hope this helps,
Mike

2/13/2006 11:31:26 AM

As much as anecdotal evidence is worthless, it may be worth bringing up the point that by the time the cops arrive, most crimes have already been commited and have been over for quite some time. When this happened

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=271785

it took the cops 45 minutes from the time we called them to tell them bullets were comming through our windows to the time they arrived. And they had a substation 10 minutes down the road. From that experience, I personaly would not be too keen on waiting for the cops to come to my aid when someone has broken into my home.

2/13/2006 12:12:27 PM

Quote :

""A person is never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce and violent attack, nor is he required to retreat from an attacker who he reasonably believes [is] about to use a deadly weapon.""

So since when are all intruders (robbers,ect) considered engaging in a violent act?

They arent.

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 12:38 PM. Reason : -]

2/13/2006 12:38:01 PM

^ I'm not sure if you meant burglary, but the definition of robbery is taking something by force.

^^ Calling the police is a must when stuff like that happens, but I agree a firearm and training is a good insurance policy in case shit hits the fan.

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2006 12:54:04 PM

Quote :

"So since when are all intruders (robbers,ect) considered engaging in a violent act? "

Generaly breaking into a home is a violent act. Furthermore, you are under no duty to retreat in your own home period, violent act or no.

2/13/2006 3:32:16 PM

Quote :

"Generaly breaking into a home is a violent act. "

Youre just making things up. Picking a lock and opening a door is not a violent act.

Stabbing someone is a violent act.

Quote :

": the act of breaking and entering a dwelling at night to commit a felony (as theft); broadly : the entering of a building with the intent to commit a crime"

I see....theft....breaking in ... nothing about violence, chief.

Quote :

"Furthermore, you are under no duty to retreat in your own home period, violent act or no."

I never said otherwise. I said shooting to kill without verbal warning to anyone you find breaking in to your home is criminaly insane.

I was commenting on what feebeminded said:

Quote :

"I have no idea about laws concerning shooting intruders, but I know if and when I did get a gun, if an intruder broke into my house, I would shoot to kill and I would do it without warning."

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 3:44 PM. Reason : -]

2/13/2006 3:38:54 PM

but that is the beauty of nc law

you can shoot someone that breaks into your house without warning

because then they will be dead so there is only one side of the story that gets told

[Edited on February 13, 2006 at 8:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2006 8:42:44 PM

excuse me mr. burglar man, could you please.... BANG your dead

2/13/2006 8:52:00 PM

"put your hands in the air, and leave my house"

2/13/2006 8:55:12 PM

you can do that if you want

but nc law allows you to shoot if you want

[/discussion]

2/13/2006 8:57:22 PM

Quote :

" i asked my gf what all he wants to talk about. the only thing she mentioned was the fact that i have guns, and keep a handgun close by. "

Did she tell you to keep a hand gun close by? or did I miss read.

Entering someones house uninvited is looking for trouble. Weather they intend to rob you or do you harm is of no matter, either way you loose.

It is your right and duty to protect your home,family and property.

Quote :

"stop with your liberal bullshit, seriously"

<<<Well said.


More bad guys than good guys have guns.....do the math

Yes I would shoot an intruder in my house....not because I can but because I wont be the victim of some thief/rapist/sycho.

And as far as warnings go they didnt give me warning that they were going to enter my house so all bets are off.

Personally I would hate to take another mans life but if it came down to it.....you figure it out

Best plan for home defense: dog to alert you of anyone entering, gun to protect if they still feel the need to advance on you.


Good luck with your gf's father

2/13/2006 10:43:00 PM

That'll learn 'em.

2/13/2006 10:47:01 PM

Excerpted from the North Carolina, Concealed Carry Handgun Training Manual, Published by the North Carolina Justice Academy, Written by Inst. Steve Johnson:
1) North Carolina Common Law
Use of force to protect a person
(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another only if: (a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault and
(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
(c) The person using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and
(d) Force used was not excessive - greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor. (2) Duty To Retreat Before Using Deadly Force Unless and exception such as those listed below applies, a citizen must retreat before using deadly force if retreat is possible.
Exception
A. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the assault threatens imminent death or great bodily harm - a murderous or felonious assault or sexual assault.
Exception
B. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the victim is on his or her own premises, or on his or her business premises, or is at home. (4) Deadly Force in Defence of Others
A Citizen may intervene and use deadly force in defence of another person when, under the facts and circumstances, it reasonably appeared necessary to save the other person from imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault but only to the extent the other person was entitled to use deadly force in self-defence.
(5) Deadly Force MAY NOT Be Used:
(a) To Stop a Simple Assault.The exact point in time a simple assault becomes deadly is often unclear. Repeated blows to vital body areas, choking, continued beating on a helpless or weakened victim, are some indicators.
(b) Because of the Use of Violent Language § 14-277.1. Communicating threats.
(c)] Because You Are a Victim of Past Violence and Fear Future Violence
(d) Because a Trespasser Refuses to Leave
(e) To Arrest a Criminal or to Prevent a Criminal's Escape
b. Use of force to protect property
The law does not permit the use of deadly force solely to protect property, or to prevent
theft, or to regain stolen property. An owner CANNOT shoot at a thief - before, during, or
after a theft. The same rule prohibits deadly force to prevent injury or vandalism to property. A different rule applies if life is imminently threatened at the same time property is taken. Deadly force used to prevent an armed robbery is force used to protect life, not to protect property.

2/14/2006 12:11:38 AM

I look at it from an economic point of view.

For the intruder, it's risk vs. reward. Every job has risks associated with it. Construction workers risk falling off a building, electricians risk being electrocuted, etc. If your job is breaking into houses to get free stuff, you risk getting shot by the homeowner. If you are not prepared to take that risk, get a new line of work.

For the homeowner, if you wake up in the middle of the night and discover someone is in your home, you have to make certain assumptions about the intruder. Is he a petty thief trying to steal your $20 VCR, or is he murderer that intends to kill you and your family? How the homeowner acts in that split second can make the difference between life and death. I believe it is in the homeowner's best interest to assume the worst and act accordingly. If he was indeed there to harm you and you killed him, then you have just saved the lives of yourself and your family. However, If you falsely assumed he was only there to rob you, then you have just put your family at risk. The key is that you do not have time to determine the intruders intentions before taking decisive action.

2/14/2006 1:47:21 AM

^Well said

2/14/2006 6:58:59 AM

Quote :

"victim of some thief/rapist/sycho."

youd murder before you were the victim of a theft? this is what im talking about. most people who want guns for home defense are insane.

Quote :

"The key is that you do not have time to determine the intruders intentions before taking decisive action."

you would if you didnt freak out like a little pussy.

if you have time to go get your gun, youve already got at least 20 seconds. if someone doesnt leave your house via the threat of a gun, you can assume that they arent burglars. this isnt rocket science.


Everyone here keeps saying they would shoot an intruder on sight bc they wouldnt have the mental capacity to make a descision to fire. If you would be scared so shitless by an intruder that you couldnt think straight, couldnt make one simple judgment call, then you SHOULDNT own a gun. picking up a gun doesnt mean shooting then next unknown person you see. the 'thinking' proceses doesnt end with loading your gun. youre are all excellent examples of why more family members are accidently shot then actual intruders.

ask any military person if the descision to fire comes before, or after they pick up a gun. you decide to fire only after youve assesed the situation, and if you cant do that, you are a danger to your family or anyone you are living with.

[/thread]

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 7:35 AM. Reason : -]

2/14/2006 7:15:43 AM

Quote :

"if someone doesnt leave your house via the threat of a gun"

That's the fucking point. You want them to leave. Without taking all your stuff. Now I dunno about you, but I'd rather them hear/see a gun and leave then steal all my shit, and possibly hurt me. Would they leave if they weren't presented with the threat of a gun? Most likely not.

What if they're trying to rape you or your wife/girlfriend/kids? The majority of rapes in the U.S. occur in the home. What could a woman living alone do if she woke up to a rapist entering her home and she didn't have a gun? Call the police? They won't get there fast enough to prevent it. She would probably get raped. And having a gun could have easily protected her from that.

I think it's obvious to everyone here who the little pussy is.

2/14/2006 7:35:53 AM

Quote :

"That's the fucking point. You want them to leave. Without taking all your stuff. Now I dunno about you, but I'd rather them hear/see a gun and leave then steal all my shit, and possibly hurt me. Would they leave if they weren't presented with the threat of a gun? Most likely not."

Whats your point? I agee.

Quote :

"hat could a woman living alone do if she woke up to a rapist entering her home and she didn't have a gun?"

please, said 'woman' wouldnt know what to do with a gun. shed probably hold it backwards and kill herself.

would you rather her kill herself?


WHERE, show me, WHERE, i said you shouldnt shoot rapists?

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 7:43 AM. Reason : -]

2/14/2006 7:40:53 AM

Haha there are plenty of women who are very good with guns and if they own them they should have proper training/experience with them. There are the idiots out there who do buy a gun and never use it and have no idea how, but in most cases they take the time to learn to use it and would be just fine.

I didn't read the whole thread but the general idea seemed that you didn't think guns should be present in the home at all. I apologize if that is not the case.

Still, breaking and entering into someone's home is a threat to the safety of the people there and anyone who does that at all should at least be threatened with a gun. Then, if they don't leave or if they have a weapon they are threatening the safety of the people in the home and it is perfectly reasonable to shoot them right there.

2/14/2006 8:51:29 AM

***Josh8315 pulls a gun on an intruder***


"Put your hands in the air, and leave my house"


"OK. OK, man, don't shoot."


***intruder put hands in air, slowly walks towards door, then bolts into another room***


***Josh8315 can't/won't just shoot him in the back....***


***the intruder evades Josh8315 long enough to pull their own gun***


***a gunfight ensues***


***Josh8315 thinks to himself***


"Damn, I should've shot him in the knees when I had the chance."


***Josh8315 is shot dead, raped and robbed. In that order.***

2/14/2006 9:13:57 AM

Quote :

"please, said 'woman' wouldnt know what to do with a gun. shed probably hold it backwards and kill herself. "

this is the retarded brainless logic that liberals love to use. most gun owners know how to use the weapon and if you own a gun its your responsibility to become proficient with it

2/14/2006 9:34:32 AM

The women I have seen at the range are pretty hardcore.

2/14/2006 12:31:49 PM

you should ask about his feelings teaching your future son how to hunt or something

to like test the waters and stuff

2/14/2006 12:36:49 PM

^^^dick cheney knew how to use a gun huh?

Quote :

"***Josh8315 pulls a gun on an intruder*** "Put your hands in the air, and leave my house" "OK. OK, man, don't shoot." ***intruder put hands in air, slowly walks towards door, then bolts into another room*** ***Josh8315 can't/won't just shoot him in the back....*** ***the intruder evades Josh8315 long enough to pull their own gun*** ***a gunfight ensues*** ***Josh8315 thinks to himself*** "Damn, I should've shot him in the knees when I had the chance." ***Josh8315 is shot dead, raped and robbed. In tha t order.***"

thats the longest list of hypotheticals ive ever seen.

in your fantasy world the armed intruder is suprised by the home owner. seems like a guess. if hes come into your home to rape and kill you, he would probably not be suprised by your presence. you wouldnt even have a chance to get your gun.


[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : -]

2/14/2006 12:46:18 PM

Quote :

"dick cheney knew how to use a gun huh?"

He didn't hold it backwards and shoot himself like your hypothetical woman.

Quote :

"thats the longest list of hypotheticals ive ever seen. in your fantasy world the armed intruder is suprised by the home owner. seems like a guess. if hes come into your home to rape and kill you, he would probably not be suprised by your presence. you wouldnt even have a chance to get your gun."

Are you trying to use hypotheticals to counter hypotheticals?

2/14/2006 12:57:12 PM

Quote :

"Are you trying to use hypotheticals to counter hypotheticals?"

are you?

Quote :

"***Josh8315 can't/won't just shoot him in the back....***"

how many people, have you, personaly shot in the back?

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM. Reason : -]

2/14/2006 12:58:50 PM

Quote :

"are you?"

No

2/14/2006 1:08:34 PM

the probability of any of these situations is astronomical

stop being so god damned paranoid

2/14/2006 1:10:19 PM

i asked theduke### to comment on this so we'll see whats what. a marine would know how to use a fucking safely and correctly better then myself or anyone else in this thread.

Quote :

" Everyone here keeps saying they would shoot an intruder on sight bc they wouldnt have the mental capacity to make a descision to fire. If you would be scared so shitless by an intruder that you couldnt think straight, couldnt make one simple judgment call, then you SHOULDNT own a gun. picking up a gun doesnt mean shooting then next unknown person you see. the 'thinking' proceses doesnt end with loading your gun. youre are all excellent examples of why more family members are accidently shot then actual intruders. ask any military person if the descision to fire comes before, or after they pick up a gun. you decide to fire only after youve assesed the situation, and if you cant do that, you are a danger to your family or anyone you are living with."

2/14/2006 1:16:05 PM

Quote :

"A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3 * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7 * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials." B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 C. Criminals avoid armed citizens * Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16 * Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17 * Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes: * Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18 Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection * Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19 * Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20 Justice Department study: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21 * 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22 * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23 "

also, i would appreciate it if you would stop posting Josh8315 because you are an idiot

2/14/2006 1:21:39 PM

Quote :

"a marine would know how to use a fucking safely and correctly better then myself or anyone else in this thread."

I'll agree that theDuke is knowledgeable, but that doesn't mean every Marine is. There are plenty of people in the military that are stupid about guns.

2/14/2006 1:23:31 PM