Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 454673 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1600 on: July 09, 2016, 03:34:01 PM »
Wow, the guy who keeps a sledge hammer to deal with burglars says no one should have a gun. Big surprise. None of my girlfriends could pull a 50# bow either, Rambo. They can work the action on my model 66 just fine. A firearm is not an answer to every situation. It is an answer to some situations. Not the only answer, but at least as practical as a sledgehammer.  Disarming law abiding citizens does not make them safer.  In fact, bats and blunt instruments kill more people every year than 'assault rifles.'  So your sledge hammer could be argued to be more dangerous than a firearm, if one were up to some pointless arguing.

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1601 on: July 09, 2016, 03:37:14 PM »

Speaking very generally, use of force law between civilian and law enforcement entities are remarkably similar with the specific exception that police are allowed to use force to make arrests.
Are you trying to say that arrest powers are not a special use-of-force privilege that governments claim for law enforcement personnel?  And before you say that isn't a lethal use of force privilege, what does every single person who ends up roughed up or dead by cop get charged with?

....you just quoted something, bolded it, and then asked me if I am "trying to say" something opposite of what I said? What is wrong with you?

Quote
Answer: Resisting arrest.

Quote

I strongly believe that anyone who had stopped this guy would not have been charged, and I can't think of any historical incidents which would indicate any other outcome.

This is known as a "defense of a third party" case, and is specifically not protected under the Castle Doctrine used by many states.  States that do not use the Castle Doctrine charge the defensive shooter as a rule, and let the court sort it out anyway.  While "defense of a third party" has been a valid defense against murder since English Common Law ruled over the various colonies, that only applies after one has been charged in court of murder.  So yes, even in Texas, the civilian shooter should expect to be arrested & charged with murder before it was all said & done, whereas everyone knows that a police sniper in the same situation would get a medal first.

Show me a state that does not allow use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of life to a third party or an incident where a lawfully armed citizen stopped in-progress killing and was then charged with murder.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1602 on: July 09, 2016, 03:39:22 PM »
I am sure you are well aware, but the government does not have a monopoly on the use of deadly force - a private citizen in an upstairs apartment with a hunting rifle could have shot this guy and he would be cleared without question. I really don't understand how some people are arguing that this should or could have ended any other way...the main complaint seems to be "omg robot drone bomb execution", but when the alternative is to let more people die, I think that was a brilliant improvisation. The impression I get from everyone was that if a SWAT team assaulted the shooter's location and half of them died, but they shot the guy, that would've been perfectly acceptable.  It's a weird world to live in where people are more concerned about the welfare of the mass murderer than they are of the people trying to stop him.

Ask a hammer how to solve a problem. Ask the hammer what he should be allowed to hit. We get it. I'm sure you're used to silence being permission, so you attack anyone who dares to ask questions. I've talked to a few police officers about the MN & LA incidents. They all were more than happy to justify the policemen's killings. They wouldn't even concede that maybe... just maybe, there could've been a better way. Maybe two guys charging, tackling and standing on someone's chest, pulling their guns out and shooting him in the heart might not have been the best course of action. Maybe shooting a guy who has never committed a crime, in his own vehicle, in a situation initiated by the police officer, with his kid in the back seat and fiance in the passenger seat WAS A BAD THING. Every one of them immediately went into the officer's fearing for their lives. We don't have a problem... nope... trust the hammers, just ask them.

So when I start asking questions about why the hammers used the force they did; what limits should we set; suggesting maybe it could've been handled better, here's a hammer, putting words in my mouth, questioning that I dare to apply any critical thinking to their actions.

Make up your mind - are you talking about the guy with the CCW permit who was shot on a traffic stop, or are you talking about the active shooter who shot a dozen people in the street?

I get it - you're a professional keyboard warrior who thinks he knows everything.  That doesn't mean you're right.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1603 on: July 09, 2016, 03:40:44 PM »
Wow, the guy who keeps a sledge hammer to deal with burglars
to exercise my forearms, and you are right.... absolutely right.... I should have a 44 magnum with no safety instead because it makes me a man


absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1604 on: July 09, 2016, 03:41:52 PM »
Show me a state that does not allow use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of life to a third party or an incident where a lawfully armed citizen stopped in-progress killing and was then charged with murder.

I believe the poster was pointing out that a civilian who shoots someone, even if it's a "good shoot", should probably expect to end up at least questioned by law enforcement, possibly spend some time in jail until the investigation is complete, and then quite possibly have a trial if it's at all questionable. As opposed to a LEO who shoots and, even in a questionable situation, are much less likely to have to go through those steps.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1605 on: July 09, 2016, 03:44:27 PM »
Wow, the guy who keeps a sledge hammer to deal with burglars
to exercise my forearms, and you are right.... absolutely right.... I should have a 44 magnum with no safety instead because it makes me a man




As has been posted many times by the female ccw holders on this site, it's not only men who need protection.  Or should women just buy a 4 pound sledge instead of a 16#? :D
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1606 on: July 09, 2016, 03:45:10 PM »

Make up your mind - are you talking about the guy with the CCW permit who was shot on a traffic stop, or are you talking about the active shooter who shot a dozen people in the street?

I get it - you're a professional keyboard warrior who thinks he knows everything.  That doesn't mean you're right.

No. I'm asking questions and having a discussion. You're trying to tell me that I'd have preferred more people die. So forgive me if I'm a little defensive about it. Maybe our government shouldn't be using explosives strapped to robots to kill people? Isn't exactly out there.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1607 on: July 09, 2016, 03:47:47 PM »

Make up your mind - are you talking about the guy with the CCW permit who was shot on a traffic stop, or are you talking about the active shooter who shot a dozen people in the street?

I get it - you're a professional keyboard warrior who thinks he knows everything.  That doesn't mean you're right.

No. I'm asking questions and having a discussion. You're trying to tell me that I'd have preferred more people die. So forgive me if I'm a little defensive about it. Maybe our government shouldn't be using explosives strapped to robots to kill people? Isn't exactly out there.

With someone engaged in gunfire during the negotiation and threatening to detonate explosives, what alternative would you suggest?  Clearly you don't approve of the one that did not further risk innocent lives, so I would like to know what you would have proposed.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1608 on: July 09, 2016, 03:50:27 PM »
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1609 on: July 09, 2016, 03:52:25 PM »

Make up your mind - are you talking about the guy with the CCW permit who was shot on a traffic stop, or are you talking about the active shooter who shot a dozen people in the street?

I get it - you're a professional keyboard warrior who thinks he knows everything.  That doesn't mean you're right.

No. I'm asking questions and having a discussion. You're trying to tell me that I'd have preferred more people die. So forgive me if I'm a little defensive about it. Maybe our government shouldn't be using explosives strapped to robots to kill people? Isn't exactly out there.

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1610 on: July 09, 2016, 03:55:28 PM »
As has been posted many times by the female ccw holders on this site, it's not only men who need protection.  Or should women just buy a 4 pound sledge instead of a 16#? :D
again they should own this
http://www.officerstore.com/store/product.aspx/productId/19603/selectedVariationId/49999/Sabre-MK-9-PHANTOM-Level-III-DPS-Aerosol-Irritant-Projector-?utm_source=adwordsfroogle&utm_campaign=adwordsfroogle&utm_content=30314&gclid=CMWsmKuu580CFYpffgodD2oJtg

Certainly a fine option for self defense. Not perfect in all situations, but probably ok for some.  Not seeing where anyone is telling anyone to 'get a gun' (beside Joe Biden), which is why it's so confusing when people say "I don't want a gun, I'll just buy pepper spray."  Uhh... ok, not the discussion. Firearms in the home have their own risks, but considering the defensive uses of guns outweigh the accidents and purposful injuries they cause, they are still a viable option for those who choose to exercise them.  Freedom to bear, and all taht.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1611 on: July 09, 2016, 04:05:18 PM »

I don't know what you do professionally, but you don't sound like an expert on the military or its operations and strategy. It's probably best to just drop it.

Okay, what I think is most people want the fear of lethal force to hang over peoples heads. You are making lethal force an option from the get-go when you have an unlocked firearm in your home. Additionally you will paint your house as a target for burglary from your kids friends when you are not home. Additionally you are increasing the odds greatly of one of your children or friends being shot. Additionally you are increasing the odds you will end your own life on a drunk binge after you lose someone you care about, or your job, or any major life changing event you are not able to deal with.

I'm touched that you're concerned about me hurting myself with my property, but it's really none of of your business. Neither is how I store my weapons or educate my children. Nor do I understand why you feel you should be able to tell me how I go about those things.

Know your target and whats behind it
Like right through the wall to your neighbors boy.

Yep, knowledge is power. Instead of talking about taking away the ability for lawful citizens to own firearms, we should be embracing the NRA's gun safety programs and educating the public about responsible gun use, the differences between full metal jacket range rounds and self-defense hollow points, and other means.

Quote
You ever been hit by a fog, not a stream, fog? Doesn't sound like it. You might have 30 seconds- might. I also keep a sledgehammer in my room to exercise my forearms. And I have a 50# recurve strung up on my wall. I know my kid cant pull it back right now. Don't tell me I cant keep it strung. That BS

You have a recurve bow on the wall.. oh.. wow? Nothing is scarier or more effective than going all Robin Hood on their azz.

Quote
So you want to be Charles Bronson. You badass.

Or just not a coward. Either or is acceptable.

Quote
I think you better let the experts handle that.

What experts? You mean the experts that aren't there, forcing you into protecting yourself. Even you agree with the need for someone to defend themselves and their family in their home.

Quote
Ah yes, the fear that people really want to instill. I recommend a penis extension. At least when you hurt someone they will like it.

A penis extension won't help me when someone breaks into my house. Give it a try, let me know how that works. I'd much rather instill that fear and have them leave without resorting to violence. I don't understand why you'd be opposed to that.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1612 on: July 09, 2016, 04:16:10 PM »
Show me a state that does not allow use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of life to a third party or an incident where a lawfully armed citizen stopped in-progress killing and was then charged with murder.

I believe the poster was pointing out that a civilian who shoots someone, even if it's a "good shoot", should probably expect to end up at least questioned by law enforcement, possibly spend some time in jail until the investigation is complete, and then quite possibly have a trial if it's at all questionable. As opposed to a LEO who shoots and, even in a questionable situation, are much less likely to have to go through those steps.

Yes, exactly.  I have a CC license, and should I ever have to fire in my own defense, I fully expect to be handcuffed & 'detained' at a bear minimum, and that is covered under the Castle Doctrine in Kentucky.  Should I fire in the defense of others, I would reasonably expect to be arrested and spend a day or two in jail till an arraignment.  I would consider it a reasonable precaution on the behalf of the police, even if it's inconvenient for myself.  Nor would I consider that a violation of my civil rights, per se.  Just because my use of force was lawful, does not mean my arrest would not be lawful.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1613 on: July 09, 2016, 04:16:30 PM »
I'd much rather instill that fear and have them leave without resorting to violence. I don't understand why you'd be opposed to that.

You never want escalate a situation to lethal unless you have to. You can quickly end up dead that way. I think too many people count on the fear without really being prepared or knowing if they are actually capable of pulling the trigger. If you can't hunt don't count on your ability to kill another person. Don't bet your life on it. Better to deal with a pissed of blind maced guy then a pissed off guy who thinks his life is in danger. JMO
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1614 on: July 09, 2016, 04:25:39 PM »

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.


It'd be interesting to have that discussion on here. But we can't, because the police have only released a bunch of information about how bad the guy was and terrible, and he had bombs, and bomb making materials and ballistics vest, which is irresponsible, especially if there is going to be some kind of trial. What's suspect is doing all of that while not releasing an ounce of information about what they did, why, when and how. I have a problem with that. In due time they may. It's just really easy to skew the details when you're the one controlling all of them.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1615 on: July 09, 2016, 04:31:30 PM »
Man. I couldn't help but think of this scene. It seriously reflects all the collective paranoia in this thread. Almost from every angle. Its possibly the greatest scene ever filmed for the gun debate.
https://youtu.be/1OUoJGdLfis
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1616 on: July 09, 2016, 04:53:49 PM »

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.


It'd be interesting to have that discussion on here. But we can't, because the police have only released a bunch of information about how bad the guy was and terrible, and he had bombs, and bomb making materials and ballistics vest, which is irresponsible, especially if there is going to be some kind of trial. What's suspect is doing all of that while not releasing an ounce of information about what they did, why, when and how. I have a problem with that. In due time they may. It's just really easy to skew the details when you're the one controlling all of them.

You said earlier that you feel the police should have been able to arrest this man without killing him.  Am I to understand that you have no suggestions, just criticism without a solution? 

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1617 on: July 09, 2016, 05:05:51 PM »

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.


It'd be interesting to have that discussion on here. But we can't, because the police have only released a bunch of information about how bad the guy was and terrible, and he had bombs, and bomb making materials and ballistics vest, which is irresponsible, especially if there is going to be some kind of trial. What's suspect is doing all of that while not releasing an ounce of information about what they did, why, when and how. I have a problem with that. In due time they may. It's just really easy to skew the details when you're the one controlling all of them.

You said earlier that you feel the police should have been able to arrest this man without killing him.  Am I to understand that you have no suggestions, just criticism without a solution?

You feel that every police force should be able to drive a robot in and detonate a bomb whenever they feel like they may encounter some form of harm? Maybe like when the SWAT team threw a flashbang into the baby's crib while enforcing a no knock warrant at the wrong address? Why'd they throw that flashbang in there? They felt threatened.

How big of a bomb would you feel you need that's 'safe?'

What other weaponry shall we mount on this robot?

What's the limit on force that police are allowed to use?

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1618 on: July 09, 2016, 05:06:57 PM »

Speaking very generally, use of force law between civilian and law enforcement entities are remarkably similar with the specific exception that police are allowed to use force to make arrests.
Are you trying to say that arrest powers are not a special use-of-force privilege that governments claim for law enforcement personnel?  And before you say that isn't a lethal use of force privilege, what does every single person who ends up roughed up or dead by cop get charged with?

....you just quoted something, bolded it, and then asked me if I am "trying to say" something opposite of what I said? What is wrong with you?


You keep contradicting yourself, as if you can't quite grok the idea that government agents with arrest powers is, by it's very nature, that same government that grants those arrest powers to it's agents are claiming such a privilege on use of force.

Quote
Quote
Quote

I strongly believe that anyone who had stopped this guy would not have been charged, and I can't think of any historical incidents which would indicate any other outcome.

This is known as a "defense of a third party" case, and is specifically not protected under the Castle Doctrine used by many states.  States that do not use the Castle Doctrine charge the defensive shooter as a rule, and let the court sort it out anyway.  While "defense of a third party" has been a valid defense against murder since English Common Law ruled over the various colonies, that only applies after one has been charged in court of murder.  So yes, even in Texas, the civilian shooter should expect to be arrested & charged with murder before it was all said & done, whereas everyone knows that a police sniper in the same situation would get a medal first.

Show me a state that does not allow use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of life to a third party or an incident where a lawfully armed citizen stopped in-progress killing and was then charged with murder.

Happens a bit too often, actually, but I suspect that you won't accept any of these because of the details of the cases.  Which, of course, is why they all ended up in a courtroom.

Defense of home & family, 1925.  A wealthy, well educated black doctor who had moved into an all white neighborhood near Detroit.  His brother was actually tried for murder twice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet#Garland_Avenue_bungalow


Killed an intruder in defense of family.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Murder-Charge-Against-MD-Man-Who-Killed-Party-Guest-Dropped-369461512.html


Similar, but in Russia.  Granted, not a US state.
https://www.rt.com/news/man-stabs-invaders-tula-586/

Australia...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/28/homeowner-charged-with-murder-after-attempt-to-detain-suspected-burglar-turns-fatal/


Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1619 on: July 09, 2016, 05:08:17 PM »
Man. I couldn't help but think of this scene. It seriously reflects all the collective paranoia in this thread. Almost from every angle. Its possibly the greatest scene ever filmed for the gun debate.
https://youtu.be/1OUoJGdLfis

I don't understand why some people are unreasonably paranoid about private ownership of guns. I thought we could have a reasonable debate by sticking to the facts and statistics, but only opinions and emotions really matter to some people. I see this a lot among the gun-control supporter side of isle, label your opponents as ignorant gun-lovers, all-the-while campaigning for gun control on the grounds of fear and paranoia.

It's a simple solution. I keep my guns, you do whatever you want to do. You don't have a right to place restrictions on me and mine because you're traumatized from watching the news.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1620 on: July 09, 2016, 05:09:50 PM »
I'd much rather instill that fear and have them leave without resorting to violence. I don't understand why you'd be opposed to that.

You never want escalate a situation to lethal unless you have to. You can quickly end up dead that way. I think too many people count on the fear without really being prepared or knowing if they are actually capable of pulling the trigger

You think, but you do not know.  You can't know.  And that is one reason you should not have any say in how I chose to defend myself, or chose not to.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1621 on: July 09, 2016, 05:16:27 PM »

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.


It'd be interesting to have that discussion on here. But we can't, because the police have only released a bunch of information about how bad the guy was and terrible, and he had bombs, and bomb making materials and ballistics vest, which is irresponsible, especially if there is going to be some kind of trial. What's suspect is doing all of that while not releasing an ounce of information about what they did, why, when and how. I have a problem with that. In due time they may. It's just really easy to skew the details when you're the one controlling all of them.

You said earlier that you feel the police should have been able to arrest this man without killing him.  Am I to understand that you have no suggestions, just criticism without a solution?

You feel that every police force should be able to drive a robot in and detonate a bomb whenever they feel like they may encounter some form of harm? Maybe like when the SWAT team threw a flashbang into the baby's crib while enforcing a no knock warrant at the wrong address? Why'd they throw that flashbang in there? They felt threatened.

How big of a bomb would you feel you need that's 'safe?'

What other weaponry shall we mount on this robot?

What's the limit on force that police are allowed to use?

That is not at all what we are arguing.  Is everything so black & white for you?  Either with us or against us?  Is that it?  No, of course not.  The robot is a weapon that none of use would like to see used, but it is just a weapon that is available to the police should they decide that they need it.  You did know that police forces have other class 2 & class 3 weapons available to them, right?  That is actually what SWAT stands for, Special Weapons and Tactics.  But they will, as this thread has proven, be scrutinized & criticized for the controversial use of this weapon.  Note that this type of weapon has been available for many years now, and this is the first time that any police force in the US has deployed a robot bomb.  They had to have known that this would be controversial, and that they will be nitpicked for decades.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1622 on: July 09, 2016, 05:22:30 PM »

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.


It'd be interesting to have that discussion on here. But we can't, because the police have only released a bunch of information about how bad the guy was and terrible, and he had bombs, and bomb making materials and ballistics vest, which is irresponsible, especially if there is going to be some kind of trial. What's suspect is doing all of that while not releasing an ounce of information about what they did, why, when and how. I have a problem with that. In due time they may. It's just really easy to skew the details when you're the one controlling all of them.

You said earlier that you feel the police should have been able to arrest this man without killing him.  Am I to understand that you have no suggestions, just criticism without a solution?

You feel that every police force should be able to drive a robot in and detonate a bomb whenever they feel like they may encounter some form of harm? Maybe like when the SWAT team threw a flashbang into the baby's crib while enforcing a no knock warrant at the wrong address? Why'd they throw that flashbang in there? They felt threatened.

How big of a bomb would you feel you need that's 'safe?'

What other weaponry shall we mount on this robot?

What's the limit on force that police are allowed to use?

Straw man.


Speaking very generally, use of force law between civilian and law enforcement entities are remarkably similar with the specific exception that police are allowed to use force to make arrests.
Are you trying to say that arrest powers are not a special use-of-force privilege that governments claim for law enforcement personnel?  And before you say that isn't a lethal use of force privilege, what does every single person who ends up roughed up or dead by cop get charged with?

....you just quoted something, bolded it, and then asked me if I am "trying to say" something opposite of what I said? What is wrong with you?


You keep contradicting yourself, as if you can't quite grok the idea that government agents with arrest powers is, by it's very nature, that same government that grants those arrest powers to it's agents are claiming such a privilege on use of force.

Quote
Quote
Quote

I strongly believe that anyone who had stopped this guy would not have been charged, and I can't think of any historical incidents which would indicate any other outcome.

This is known as a "defense of a third party" case, and is specifically not protected under the Castle Doctrine used by many states.  States that do not use the Castle Doctrine charge the defensive shooter as a rule, and let the court sort it out anyway.  While "defense of a third party" has been a valid defense against murder since English Common Law ruled over the various colonies, that only applies after one has been charged in court of murder.  So yes, even in Texas, the civilian shooter should expect to be arrested & charged with murder before it was all said & done, whereas everyone knows that a police sniper in the same situation would get a medal first.

Show me a state that does not allow use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of life to a third party or an incident where a lawfully armed citizen stopped in-progress killing and was then charged with murder.

Happens a bit too often, actually, but I suspect that you won't accept any of these because of the details of the cases.  Which, of course, is why they all ended up in a courtroom.

Defense of home & family, 1925.  A wealthy, well educated black doctor who had moved into an all white neighborhood near Detroit.  His brother was actually tried for murder twice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet#Garland_Avenue_bungalow


Killed an intruder in defense of family.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Murder-Charge-Against-MD-Man-Who-Killed-Party-Guest-Dropped-369461512.html


Similar, but in Russia.  Granted, not a US state.
https://www.rt.com/news/man-stabs-invaders-tula-586/

Australia...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/28/homeowner-charged-with-murder-after-attempt-to-detain-suspected-burglar-turns-fatal/

1) They shot at people throwing rocks at a house.

2) He shot an unarmed guy making threats.

3/4 are outside of the US.

As I said, please show me an incident where a lawfully armed citizen stopped an in-progress killing and was then charged with murder.   This Dallas situation, with a dozen people shot and five dead, is not remotely a gray area.  I said if a private citizen had shot the guy in Dallas, he wouldn't be charged with murder.  Nothing you posted is even remotely relevant.

Please show me how I'm contradicting myself - other than the post I quoted, which basically claimed I said the exact opposite of what I did, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1623 on: July 09, 2016, 05:25:08 PM »
For anyone implying that Dallas PD will cover up whatever they want...here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/07/the_dallas_police_department_has_been_a_model_for_reducing_officer_involved.html

Quote
Among the changes the Dallas police have made since 2012: a new foot chase policy aimed at discouraging officers from making risky decisions while pursuing suspects, new guidelines for reporting encounters involving the use of force, and a policy of bringing in the FBI Civil Rights Division to review all police-involved shootings.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1624 on: July 09, 2016, 05:32:25 PM »


1) They shot at people throwing rocks at a house.



Following a series of racial threats, in a time & city that other black families had been attacked by racist mobs for moving into white neighborhoods.  And some estimates of the crowd put the number as up to one thousand.  So throwing rocks was certainly a lethal threat, many people have been killed by far fewer people throwing rocks at them.  Like I said, the details do matter.  I cannot find any case that precisely fits your model, but that is likely because your criteria is so narrow that you cannot see the application of other cases.

And I have already, long ago figured out that you can't grok what you can't grok.  It is what it is.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1625 on: July 09, 2016, 05:35:05 PM »


1) They shot at people throwing rocks at a house.



Following a series of racial threats, in a time & city that other black families had been attacked by racist mobs for moving into white neighborhoods.  And some estimates of the crowd put the number as up to one thousand.  So throwing rocks was certainly a lethal threat, many people have been killed by far fewer people throwing rocks at them.  Like I said, the details do matter.  I cannot find any case that precisely fits your model, but that is likely because your criteria is so narrow that you cannot see the application of other cases.

And I have already, long ago figured out that you can't grok what you can't grok.  It is what it is.

Given that we have been in agreement throughout the entirety of this thread, I'm a bit astonished that you aren't giving me the courtesy of explaining exactly where you think I'm contradicting myself.

My criteria is narrow because I was talking about this specific incident, which is so far beyond the justification point that it should be a complete non-issue.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1626 on: July 09, 2016, 05:41:56 PM »
I'd much rather instill that fear and have them leave without resorting to violence. I don't understand why you'd be opposed to that.

You never want escalate a situation to lethal unless you have to. You can quickly end up dead that way. I think too many people count on the fear without really being prepared or knowing if they are actually capable of pulling the trigger

You think, but you do not know.  You can't know.  And that is one reason you should not have any say in how I chose to defend myself, or chose not to.

Read On Killing.

So you are defending yourself and it goes through the wall and hits my wife. What is to stop a veteran from ambushing you as you come out of work, are pumping gas, or are getting some cash at the bank, or having a drink at the bar?

The safety of guns is an illusion. There is no safety except removing things that increase or escalate violence. You have the right to carry a gun. So does everyone else. Remember that. Natural law states if it's in my possession I have the right. Is that what you want? The red button on the table of every conflict?



absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1627 on: July 09, 2016, 05:46:54 PM »

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.


It'd be interesting to have that discussion on here. But we can't, because the police have only released a bunch of information about how bad the guy was and terrible, and he had bombs, and bomb making materials and ballistics vest, which is irresponsible, especially if there is going to be some kind of trial. What's suspect is doing all of that while not releasing an ounce of information about what they did, why, when and how. I have a problem with that. In due time they may. It's just really easy to skew the details when you're the one controlling all of them.

You said earlier that you feel the police should have been able to arrest this man without killing him.  Am I to understand that you have no suggestions, just criticism without a solution?

You feel that every police force should be able to drive a robot in and detonate a bomb whenever they feel like they may encounter some form of harm? Maybe like when the SWAT team threw a flashbang into the baby's crib while enforcing a no knock warrant at the wrong address? Why'd they throw that flashbang in there? They felt threatened.

How big of a bomb would you feel you need that's 'safe?'

What other weaponry shall we mount on this robot?

What's the limit on force that police are allowed to use?

That is not at all what we are arguing.  Is everything so black & white for you?  Either with us or against us?  Is that it?  No, of course not.  The robot is a weapon that none of use would like to see used, but it is just a weapon that is available to the police should they decide that they need it.  You did know that police forces have other class 2 & class 3 weapons available to them, right?  That is actually what SWAT stands for, Special Weapons and Tactics.  But they will, as this thread has proven, be scrutinized & criticized for the controversial use of this weapon.  Note that this type of weapon has been available for many years now, and this is the first time that any police force in the US has deployed a robot bomb.  They had to have known that this would be controversial, and that they will be nitpicked for decades.

I was responding to JLee using his tactics. That wasn't directed at you.

It's a recipe for bad things when a single entity can control all of the information about a situation and use lethal force with impunity. Discussing the limits on something like this needs to happen. Automation isn't going away. I doubt there is a process for our police to authorize use of a deadly force with a robot and a bomb. I realize this situation is emotionally charged, as it should be. But those emotions shouldn't cloud our judgement.

If they want to release information, they should be releasing all of the information. If they want to use robots to blow up criminals or in some cases alleged criminals, they should have to at least talk to a judge. Someone's name should be directly responsible for the death of a citizen and a major investigation should ensue from a 3rd party. Are any of these things happening? I don't know.

I've personally been bothered by how easily words like terrorism have been thrown around in the last decade and how well we've automated killing in warzones. Forgive me if I'm not a bit apprehensive about how everyone has passively accepted how our police department used automation to kill this man and wondering what the limits on tactics like that are.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1628 on: July 09, 2016, 05:49:24 PM »

Do you have a suggestion on a better way to end this particular situation? I didn't see that you offered any; just stated that robot bombs were bad.  If the guy hadn't claimed to have explosives planted around the area, or had been in a place where he was unable to harm more people, there may have been time to explore more options. As it was, he was still able to shoot at people, and still capable of harm; ending the situation in the safest, quickest way possible was good.  Of course, it's easy to say things from the other side, when people's lives aren't on the line, but personally I have great respect for whomever made that call in the incredibly difficult circumstances they were facing.


It'd be interesting to have that discussion on here. But we can't, because the police have only released a bunch of information about how bad the guy was and terrible, and he had bombs, and bomb making materials and ballistics vest, which is irresponsible, especially if there is going to be some kind of trial. What's suspect is doing all of that while not releasing an ounce of information about what they did, why, when and how. I have a problem with that. In due time they may. It's just really easy to skew the details when you're the one controlling all of them.

You said earlier that you feel the police should have been able to arrest this man without killing him.  Am I to understand that you have no suggestions, just criticism without a solution?

You feel that every police force should be able to drive a robot in and detonate a bomb whenever they feel like they may encounter some form of harm? Maybe like when the SWAT team threw a flashbang into the baby's crib while enforcing a no knock warrant at the wrong address? Why'd they throw that flashbang in there? They felt threatened.

How big of a bomb would you feel you need that's 'safe?'

What other weaponry shall we mount on this robot?

What's the limit on force that police are allowed to use?

That is not at all what we are arguing.  Is everything so black & white for you?  Either with us or against us?  Is that it?  No, of course not.  The robot is a weapon that none of use would like to see used, but it is just a weapon that is available to the police should they decide that they need it.  You did know that police forces have other class 2 & class 3 weapons available to them, right?  That is actually what SWAT stands for, Special Weapons and Tactics.  But they will, as this thread has proven, be scrutinized & criticized for the controversial use of this weapon.  Note that this type of weapon has been available for many years now, and this is the first time that any police force in the US has deployed a robot bomb.  They had to have known that this would be controversial, and that they will be nitpicked for decades.

I was responding to JLee using his tactics. That wasn't directed at you.

It's a recipe for bad things when a single entity can control all of the information about a situation and use lethal force with impunity. Discussing the limits on something like this needs to happen. Automation isn't going away. I doubt there is a process for our police to authorize use of a deadly force with a robot and a bomb. I realize this situation is emotionally charged, as it should be. But those emotions shouldn't cloud our judgement.

If they want to release information, they should be releasing all of the information. If they want to use robots to blow up criminals or in some cases alleged criminals, they should have to at least talk to a judge. Someone's name should be directly responsible for the death of a citizen and a major investigation should ensue from a 3rd party. Are any of these things happening? I don't know.

I've personally been bothered by how easily words like terrorism have been thrown around in the last decade and how well we've automated killing in warzones. Forgive me if I'm not a bit apprehensive about how everyone has passively accepted how our police department used automation to kill this man and wondering what the limits on tactics like that are.

The Dallas Police Department has all shootings investigated by the FBI's Civil Rights division, so hopefully you can rest assured that an appropriate investigation will be conducted.  I doubt this would be excepted because it wasn't technically a shooting.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1629 on: July 09, 2016, 06:02:16 PM »
I'd much rather instill that fear and have them leave without resorting to violence. I don't understand why you'd be opposed to that.

You never want escalate a situation to lethal unless you have to. You can quickly end up dead that way. I think too many people count on the fear without really being prepared or knowing if they are actually capable of pulling the trigger

You think, but you do not know.  You can't know.  And that is one reason you should not have any say in how I chose to defend myself, or chose not to.

Read On Killing.

So you are defending yourself and it goes through the wall and hits my wife. What is to stop a veteran from ambushing you as you come out of work, are pumping gas, or are getting some cash at the bank, or having a drink at the bar?


As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, everyone who has a concealed carry license already knows that they are responsible for what happens with every round they fire; in their own defense or otherwise.  If I kill your wife by shooting through walls, I'm already guilty of manslaughter by definition.  Worse if I was criminally negligent leading up to the actual event.  The veteran would be breaking the law for attacking me regardless, unless I were a threat to him at that time.

Quote

The safety of guns is an illusion. There is no safety except removing things that increase or escalate violence.

So declares MR. Percentage.

Quote

 You have the right to carry a gun. So does everyone else. Remember that.


Well, duh.  Have you ever heard the phrase, "An armed society is a polite society?".  Do you know why Victorian England was such a polite age for Great Britain?  Here's a hint...
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/03/05/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/

Quote

 Natural law states if it's in my possession I have the right. Is that what you want?

Why wouldn't I?  Have I wronged you in some way?  I don't fear my neighbor with a gun, because I don't threaten my neighbor.  Of course, I'm a sheepdog, and the sheep fear the sheepdogs for their fangs.

Quote

 The red button on the table of every conflict?

Again, why should I fear my neighbor?  For that matter, why should I fear conflict?  You & I will likely never see this from the same perspectives, simply because we are different breeds of man.  I joined the USMC at 17, during an active state of foreign conflict, fully aware of what that could mean for me.  I don't relish the fight, but I don't fear the appearance of the wolf either.  Unless, of course, you succeed in taking away my fangs.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1630 on: July 09, 2016, 06:21:13 PM »
Anyone know how I can stop getting notifications on this thread? Some setting I can unset somewhere?

Yes. Along the bottom there should be a set of buttons.  One of them should be "notify", click that and it should give you the option to cease notifications.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1631 on: July 09, 2016, 06:29:20 PM »
On Killing will be a good read for you. It shows that only about 20% or conditioned people (like Marines because they keep heaven packed with fresh souls) will actually do it. For most, I think it just invites more trouble.

There are four states of conflict. 1 fight 2 flight 3 posture 4 submit
Posturing is Ike when chimps pound on their chest or beat the ground with sticks. Sometimes it works. Then you have the idiots behind the Toyota with the AK47 held high over their head while they fire not even looking at what they are shooting. This is posturing. Have a gun for "protection" is often posturing. Well it's posturing yourself in to a life or death instead of kick your ass fight.

Number 4 is submit aka shell shock. When someone locks up and can't move like a dog tucking it's tail or giving you the belly.

Everyone knows 1 & 2 so I won't waste time with those.

But you know all of this already right because the NRA told you

I don't plan on killing anyone. Even my bow (it hits harder than a 9mm) would take time thought and effort to use, would be difficult to use on myself, and is not likely to accidentally discharge because someone thinks it not loaded. It's doubtful it would make it through two walls because there is more mass and less speed.

Even if you want a lethal option a gun is not the best for home defense. But people don't want sense they want fear. They want a AR15 and a sawed-off or a hand grebade if they could get one. Because everyone EVEN THE POLICE will fear me. It's a crazy mentality if you ask me. I thought the law enforcement was to protect and serve
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1632 on: July 09, 2016, 07:06:31 PM »
But you know all of this already right because the NRA told you

Even if you want a lethal option a gun is not the best for home defense. But people don't want sense they want fear. They want a AR15 and a sawed-off or a hand grebade if they could get one. Because everyone EVEN THE POLICE will fear me. It's a crazy mentality if you ask me. I thought the law enforcement was to protect and serve

What's your fascination with the NRA? I've shown earlier that the NRA isn't a nefarious organization, but a special interest organization which receives the majority of its support from everyday citizens through membership fees and donations. It's probably one of the most popular organizations in our culture, and it's centered around responsible gun use. Even the left should be supporting the NRA's goals of responsible and safe gun use.

Even if you want a lethal option a gun is not the best for home defense. But people don't want sense they want fear. They want a AR15 and a sawed-off or a hand grebade if they could get one. Because everyone EVEN THE POLICE will fear me. It's a crazy mentality if you ask me. I thought the law enforcement was to protect and serve

Serious? Firstly, gun owners don't advertise the fact that they have guns, where there guns are, or what guns they have. All of this ridiculous talk of posturing is nonsense, because it requires people to advertise the fact that they're armed, and the vast majority of gun owners don't do that. I'm not going to tell anyone what weapons I have in my home, that's for me to know and someone else to find out. Likewise, I don't want people to FEAR me, even the police, until they're at the point where they've unlawfully violated my rights or put me into danger.

A sniper shooting someone illegally isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment. He's not defending himself from authority, authority isn't unlawfully depriving him of his Constitutional rights. This doesn't seem that complicated, but you keep making wild claims about that and based on little knowledge of guns, people that own firearms, and their stances. I don't want you to answer, but I can tell from your statements that you don't own a gun and aren't familiar with guns or gun ownership and I really think you need to educate yourself on primary reason behind which we allow private citizens to carry firearms, the 2nd Amendment.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1633 on: July 09, 2016, 07:17:41 PM »
This is where the argument all blends together. Your decision to keep unsecured firearms in your home is not the same as the freedom to maintain arms to prevent tyrannical government. Telling me to educate myself is a joke. I am aware of probably more than you and reserve the right to disagree you.

Posturing is real Mexican judo. And their are plenty of idiots who will flash a gun thinking that this will send someone to flight instead of fight only to find when they pull it they (the gun owner) will really submit.

You have received some additional education today. I suggest you meditate on it
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1634 on: July 09, 2016, 07:46:08 PM »
This is where the argument all blends together. Your decision to keep unsecured firearms in your home is not the same as the freedom to maintain arms to prevent tyrannical government. Telling me to educate myself is a joke. I am aware of probably more than you and reserve the right to disagree you.

Posturing is real Mexican judo. And their are plenty of idiots who will flash a gun thinking that this will send someone to flight instead of fight only to find when they pull it they (the gun owner) will really submit.

You have received some additional education today. I suggest you meditate on it

Define 'unsecured'. Is this an assumption on your part that gun owners can't be trusted to safeguard their weapons so they don't deserve the right to possess them? Obviously, the government cannot mandate any method of requiring 'reasonable' storage safeguards on privately owned firearms since there's no effective method of enforcing or regulating that policy. In the cities that DO, it's only enforced as a punitive lever after the fact. It would also constitute a gross violation of the 2nd Amendment by allowing government to dictate by what method you're required to secure firearms since laws imply some method of enforcement. The only policy that seems to be in ascendancy in regards to gun control is that most gun owners need to be protected from their own folly by making it more difficult to purchase firearms, thus eliminating the risk of 'unsecured' firearms, whatever that means.

However, I don't see how that isn't seen as 'infringing' on someone's ability to purchase and possess a firearm by government IAW the 2nd Amendment. When you say things like "Your decision to keep unsecured firearms in your home is not the same as the freedom to maintain arms to prevent tyrannical government.", what exactly do you mean by that statement? Where else would I, as a private citizen, keep my guns safe from government appropriation if not in my possession?

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1635 on: July 09, 2016, 07:46:54 PM »
Anyone know how I can stop getting notifications on this thread? Some setting I can unset somewhere?

Yes. Along the bottom there should be a set of buttons.  One of them should be "notify", click that and it should give you the option to cease notifications.
Still shows up in my "Show new replies to your posts" page.

Any way to get it off of that?

Sorry man. I will stop posting. I'm sure that will help
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1636 on: July 09, 2016, 07:48:49 PM »
Anyone know how I can stop getting notifications on this thread? Some setting I can unset somewhere?

Yes. Along the bottom there should be a set of buttons.  One of them should be "notify", click that and it should give you the option to cease notifications.
Still shows up in my "Show new replies to your posts" page.

Any way to get it off of that?

Short of deleting every post you made in this thread, no. :(

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1637 on: July 09, 2016, 07:58:36 PM »

But you know all of this already right because the NRA told you

The NRA has never told me anything.  I'm not a member, never will be.  I know those things because I'm one of those f*cking US Marines you spoke of.  It's that exact form of self-selection that leads young men full of piss & vinegar into the Marines instead of the Coast Guard.  No offense to guardsmen, but everyone knows they don't go half way around the planet looking for dragons to kill.  So what if only 20% are willing to take a life, when put to the test?  Shouldn't they have the choice?  That is exactly the point here.  What you advocate for is removing the choice from that 20%, and making it closer to 0%.  No wise warrior fights a battle that cannot be won.

Quote

I don't plan on killing anyone.


Neither do I.  And I didn't when I joined the USMC either.  That had nothing to do with it.

Quote

Even if you want a lethal option a gun is not the best for home defense.


Generally true, but irrelevant.  It's not for you to decide.  A shotgun loaded with 'low recoil' mixed gauge shot is likely the best choice, with the first loaded round being salt shot or pepper pod.  For most homes, but not all.  But if you can only afford one gun, that's still the best one for you.

Quote
But people don't want sense they want fear. They want a AR15 and a sawed-off or a hand grebade if they could get one. Because everyone EVEN THE POLICE will fear me. It's a crazy mentality if you ask me. I thought the law enforcement was to protect and serve

That is a crazy mentality.  And you are projecting something terrible.  I do not recommend that you buy a gun.  If anyone were to become a statistic on this thread, it's you. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1638 on: July 09, 2016, 08:01:00 PM »
Anyone know how I can stop getting notifications on this thread? Some setting I can unset somewhere?

Yes. Along the bottom there should be a set of buttons.  One of them should be "notify", click that and it should give you the option to cease notifications.
Still shows up in my "Show new replies to your posts" page.

Any way to get it off of that?

No, I don't think so.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1639 on: July 09, 2016, 08:17:11 PM »
No MoonShadow. What I advocate for is people making the choice, the smart choice, to either keep them out of their house or secured. Since I have to spell it out: secured in a safe where nobody else has the combo because loose lips sink ships and cause Sandyhook and Columbine. I was quoting the book but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you guys (the Marines) are rightly prepared for battle by being taught to kill-kill-kill. The irony is the Coast Guard (I am not one) get into plenty of gun fights with drug runners, human traffickers, and pirates. But I digress because you like guns. Like them safely because I happened to know a couple of kids who broke into their friends parents house and sold the guns they stole to gang bangers for pot. I know this because it was confessed to me as a teenager by a another rebellious youth. So it goes
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1640 on: July 09, 2016, 09:05:02 PM »
No MoonShadow. What I advocate for is people making the choice, the smart choice, to either keep them out of their house or secured.

You advocate for the illusion of choice, just so long as the ignorant masses can be 'nudged' into the 'correct' decision.  I'm sure you mean well, but you don't even know what you don't know.  There is no solution to be found in the path you desire to take.


Quote
Since I have to spell it out: secured in a safe where nobody else has the combo because loose lips sink ships and cause Sandyhook and Columbine. I was quoting the book but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you guys (the Marines) are rightly prepared for battle by being taught to kill-kill-kill. The irony is the Coast Guard (I am not one) get into plenty of gun fights with drug runners, human traffickers, and pirates.

I am aware of that.  But most people at 19 are not.  I was not.  The public image is that the Marines go hunt down "bad guys" and blow stuff up, and that the guardsmen are well armed water cops.  The reality being different notwithstanding, it is upon image that such young men such as myself self-select.  Had I known then what I know now, I might have seriously considered the Coast Guard; their skillsets are much better translatable into civilian jobs.  Air Force as well.  Marines, not so much.


Quote
But I digress because you like guns.
Actually, I don't.  I value them as a tool.  I don't like my wrenches & sockets either, but I require them.  Guns are a tool for a particular task, and whether or not you  like it, that task is necessary for the maintenance of civilization.  No matter their risks.

Quote
Like them safely because I happened to know a couple of kids who broke into their friends parents house and sold the guns they stole to gang bangers for pot. I know this because it was confessed to me as a teenager by a another rebellious youth. So it goes

Ah, I see.  You have been exposed to gun crime at an early age.  I understand now.  But know this, your experiences are not typical.  I have, literally, never experienced any kind of violent crime or gun theft in my life.  The only crime that has touched myself, is having the trunk of my car popped and my tools stolen.  In my lifetime, I have only met one person who has ever been mugged inside my city of birth.  While that might be presently changing, crime has been very low for a very long time in Louisville, Kentucky.  And the "gun culture" is quite dominant here.  I would say those facts are related, while you may disagree.  Doesn't matter.  All that any of us here ask of you is that you agree to disagree, and not force regulations upon us, based upon the idea that they sound good to your uninitiated concept of gun ownership.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1641 on: July 09, 2016, 10:18:36 PM »
Well I guess. Most people have never experienced a gun in their face. Most have never personally met a girl that shot her boyfriend because she was drunk and he wouldn't give her the car keys. Or I suppose met another who was shot 4 times by a girlfriend with a 38 before she was shot dead by police. Or met someone personally who shot their wife twice in the chest then once in the head over an argument about money with his step kids in the house before he stormed out and flagged down police and confessed it.. Or perhaps many of the other countless but pointless stories I can muster from the abyss. It's never possible until it happens to you. You can tell someone they need a seat belt but some are destined to fly through the windshield. Nothing I can do to stop it. It's part of the machine but I reserve my own opinion and vote. I'm done with my part in force

May God bless you keep you and show you mercy. Sincerely
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1642 on: July 10, 2016, 09:37:52 AM »
I'd much rather instill that fear and have them leave without resorting to violence. I don't understand why you'd be opposed to that.

You never want escalate a situation to lethal unless you have to. You can quickly end up dead that way. I think too many people count on the fear without really being prepared or knowing if they are actually capable of pulling the trigger. If you can't hunt don't count on your ability to kill another person. Don't bet your life on it. Better to deal with a pissed of blind maced guy then a pissed off guy who thinks his life is in danger. JMO

Do you have statistics on any of this, or do you just 'think' this?  How is a burglar you maced less inclined to beat you dead than a guy who you have a gun on? Any proof of this, or do you just 'feel' it, with all of your combat experience?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1643 on: July 10, 2016, 01:49:56 PM »
Since it's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in this thread that owning firearms is a god given right and that if more people kept guns in their homes, crime would actually go down, what do you guys think about private citizens' right to own bomb carrying robots? Is that protected under the 2nd Amendment too? If owning wimpy little pistols and rifles strikes fear into the hearts of potential criminals and lowers crime, wouldn't homeowners' owning bomb carrying robots make our society even safer? If a significant number of law-abiding citizens started keeping bomb-carrying robots in their homes, probably crime would drop to around zero, don't you think?

Rather than having to risk life and limb by confronting an intruder personally, wouldn't you rather just use your iPhone to operate a bomb-carrying robot from the safety of your fortified bedroom? I'm mostly thinking here of citizens who have physical challenges or limitations, e.g., older people with poor night vision or women living alone, and how having a robot would add an extra layer of safety to their lives. Our federal government, now, regularly carries out extra-judicial executions in other countries using unmanned drones, and the Dallas Police Department just executed a guy with a bomb carrying robot the other day. It seems like it a great thing, doesn't it?

Since our governments now, apparently, have the right to execute criminals without a trial, why shouldn't individual citizens have the same right? Of course, we'd have to have a vetting process and people would have to apply for a permit, there'd be background checks, etc., but wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to go through the whole cumbersome process of getting a judge to sentence a criminal to prison to execution?

"You break in my house or threaten my family in any way, and I'll blow your ass up!" We could make bumper stickers and signs that people could put in their yards to alert potential criminals to the existence of a bomb carrying robot in a home. What criminal in his right mind would break into a house where he knew or had reason to suspect there might be a bomb carrying robot waiting for him inside?

Somebody needs to contact the Trump campaign to see if they'd be willing to get behind a movement to legalize private ownership of bomb carrying robots. Of course, the robots would all be designed, manufactured, marketed and sold by private American companies, but the U.S. Government could get a piece of the action, too, by brokering the sale of the technology to other countries. Just think how proud we'd all be knowing that good ole American ingenuity solved the problem of crime all over the world.

God bless America!

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1644 on: July 10, 2016, 05:06:54 PM »
Since it's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in this thread that owning firearms is a god given right and that if more people kept guns in their homes, crime would actually go down, what do you guys think about private citizens' right to own bomb carrying robots? Is that protected under the 2nd Amendment too? If owning wimpy little pistols and rifles strikes fear into the hearts of potential criminals and lowers crime, wouldn't homeowners' owning bomb carrying robots make our society even safer? If a significant number of law-abiding citizens started keeping bomb-carrying robots in their homes, probably crime would drop to around zero, don't you think?

I wouldn't mind a cool bomb robot, why not. I mean the 2nd Amendment gave private citizens to right to buy friggin cannons for use on their ships in the 1700s, what's the 2016 version of that - we should have that. Stop being a hater.

Since our governments now, apparently, have the right to execute criminals without a trial, why shouldn't individual citizens have the same right? Of course, we'd have to have a vetting process and people would have to apply for a permit, there'd be background checks, etc., but wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to go through the whole cumbersome process of getting a judge to sentence a criminal to prison to execution?

What are you talking about? Their actions were appropriate vs an armed assailant unwilling to surrender in a defensive position. I'd rather they risked a robot than risk more lives to end the gunman's murderous rampage.

Somebody needs to contact the Trump campaign to see if they'd be willing to get behind a movement to legalize private ownership of bomb carrying robots. Of course, the robots would all be designed, manufactured, marketed and sold by private American companies, but the U.S. Government could get a piece of the action, too, by brokering the sale of the technology to other countries. Just think how proud we'd all be knowing that good ole American ingenuity solved the problem of crime all over the world.

God bless America!

Finally, some common sense and rationality out of a post. I'd rather they drafted you, gave you some crash course training, handed you a gun and sent you into Taliban-infested communities to stop the human rights atrocities carried out by extremists. But hey.. they ended up using drones instead. I guess human lives aren't worth risking in some situations, maybe next time we'll decide to risk your life.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1645 on: July 11, 2016, 07:19:30 AM »
No MoonShadow. What I advocate for is people making the choice, the smart choice, to either keep them out of their house or secured.

You advocate for the illusion of choice, just so long as the ignorant masses can be 'nudged' into the 'correct' decision.  I'm sure you mean well, but you don't even know what you don't know.  There is no solution to be found in the path you desire to take.


Quote
Since I have to spell it out: secured in a safe where nobody else has the combo because loose lips sink ships and cause Sandyhook and Columbine. I was quoting the book but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you guys (the Marines) are rightly prepared for battle by being taught to kill-kill-kill. The irony is the Coast Guard (I am not one) get into plenty of gun fights with drug runners, human traffickers, and pirates.

I am aware of that.  But most people at 19 are not.  I was not.  The public image is that the Marines go hunt down "bad guys" and blow stuff up, and that the guardsmen are well armed water cops.  The reality being different notwithstanding, it is upon image that such young men such as myself self-select.  Had I known then what I know now, I might have seriously considered the Coast Guard; their skillsets are much better translatable into civilian jobs.  Air Force as well.  Marines, not so much.


Quote
But I digress because you like guns.
Actually, I don't.  I value them as a tool.  I don't like my wrenches & sockets either, but I require them.  Guns are a tool for a particular task, and whether or not you  like it, that task is necessary for the maintenance of civilization.  No matter their risks.

Quote
Like them safely because I happened to know a couple of kids who broke into their friends parents house and sold the guns they stole to gang bangers for pot. I know this because it was confessed to me as a teenager by a another rebellious youth. So it goes

Ah, I see.  You have been exposed to gun crime at an early age.  I understand now. But know this, your experiences are not typical.  I have, literally, never experienced any kind of violent crime or gun theft in my life.  The only crime that has touched myself, is having the trunk of my car popped and my tools stolen.  In my lifetime, I have only met one person who has ever been mugged inside my city of birth.  While that might be presently changing, crime has been very low for a very long time in Louisville, Kentucky.  And the "gun culture" is quite dominant here.  I would say those facts are related, while you may disagree.  Doesn't matter.  All that any of us here ask of you is that you agree to disagree, and not force regulations upon us, based upon the idea that they sound good to your uninitiated concept of gun ownership.
Proof for that?  Because what I am seeing is opposite to that:
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/stolen-guns-increasingly-used-in-violent-crimes/

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1646 on: July 11, 2016, 11:13:05 AM »
In this NYTimes article, the mayor of Dallas says he thinks maybe Texas should rethink its gun laws which allow people to openly carry "long rifles", aka AR-15's, in public. LOL!

Quote
Mayor Mike Rawlings of Dallas suggested in an interview on Sunday that, in the wake of the attack, he supported tightening the state’s gun laws to restrict the carrying of rifles and shotguns in public.

“There should be some way to say I shouldn’t be bringing my shotgun to a Mavericks game or to a protest because something crazy should happen,” said Mr. Rawlings, a Democrat. “I just want to come back to common sense.”

The state’s open-carry culture, the mayor said, had imperiled people on the streets of Dallas. “This is the first time — but a very concrete time — that I think a law can hurt citizens, police and not protect them,” he said, adding that he was not anti-gun and that he owned a shotgun himself. “I think it’s amazing when you think that there is a gunfight going on, and you are supposed to be able to sort who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.”............

The Dallas police chief, David O. Brown, described to CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday the amount of confusion the armed protesters initially caused.

He said the event had attracted “20 or 30 people” who “showed up with AR-15 rifles slung across their shoulder.”

“They were wearing gas masks,” Mr. Brown said. “They were wearing bulletproof vests and camo fatigues, for effect, for whatever reason.”

When the shooting started, “they began to run,” he said. And because they ran in the middle of the shooting, he said, the police on the scene viewed them as suspects. “Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests, they are suspects, until we eliminate that.”

“Doesn’t make sense to us, but that’s their right in Texas,” he said. He did not say whether he supported restricting the carrying of rifles on the streets.

It's crazy that something like that could happen at an event where all those law abiding Texans were there with their guns. After everything I've learned in this thread about how guns make us all safer, I'm really surprised. I would've thought that that BLM march would've been the safest place in the world. Maybe it's just that there weren't enough people carrying guns to make it safe. Maybe if 200 or 300 people had all been carrying AR-15's, then it would've been safe. :)

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1647 on: July 11, 2016, 11:34:20 AM »
It's crazy that something like that could happen at an event where all those law abiding Texans were there with their guns. After everything I've learned in this thread about how guns make us all safer, I'm really surprised. I would've thought that that BLM march would've been the safest place in the world. Maybe it's just that there weren't enough people carrying guns to make it safe. Maybe if 200 or 300 people had all been carrying AR-15's, then it would've been safe. :)

The only thing that I've learned is that we have a lot of cowardly people in our society (like this Democrat mayor) that would prefer we were all victims, whether that be vs. other citizens or the government. They willing advocate trading their protected rights for an illusion of safety. They also don't care about facts and figures, as we've demonstrated over and over that restricting access to firearms, both foreign and domestic, doesn't have any noticeable impact on gun homicides.

Keep beating that illogical drum though, I'm sure if you say it enough the more gullible elements of society will eventually believe you. I'm just sad that gun-control supporters trick our more naive voters into giving away their rights, and the rights of their children, for nothing.

[MOD NOTE: Knock off the hyperbole and the insults.  That's not how we comport ourselves here.  Thank you]
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 06:56:29 AM by FrugalToque »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1648 on: July 11, 2016, 12:12:26 PM »
No MoonShadow. What I advocate for is people making the choice, the smart choice, to either keep them out of their house or secured.

You advocate for the illusion of choice, just so long as the ignorant masses can be 'nudged' into the 'correct' decision.  I'm sure you mean well, but you don't even know what you don't know.  There is no solution to be found in the path you desire to take.


Quote
Since I have to spell it out: secured in a safe where nobody else has the combo because loose lips sink ships and cause Sandyhook and Columbine. I was quoting the book but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you guys (the Marines) are rightly prepared for battle by being taught to kill-kill-kill. The irony is the Coast Guard (I am not one) get into plenty of gun fights with drug runners, human traffickers, and pirates.

I am aware of that.  But most people at 19 are not.  I was not.  The public image is that the Marines go hunt down "bad guys" and blow stuff up, and that the guardsmen are well armed water cops.  The reality being different notwithstanding, it is upon image that such young men such as myself self-select.  Had I known then what I know now, I might have seriously considered the Coast Guard; their skillsets are much better translatable into civilian jobs.  Air Force as well.  Marines, not so much.


Quote
But I digress because you like guns.
Actually, I don't.  I value them as a tool.  I don't like my wrenches & sockets either, but I require them.  Guns are a tool for a particular task, and whether or not you  like it, that task is necessary for the maintenance of civilization.  No matter their risks.

Quote
Like them safely because I happened to know a couple of kids who broke into their friends parents house and sold the guns they stole to gang bangers for pot. I know this because it was confessed to me as a teenager by a another rebellious youth. So it goes

Ah, I see.  You have been exposed to gun crime at an early age.  I understand now. But know this, your experiences are not typical.  I have, literally, never experienced any kind of violent crime or gun theft in my life.  The only crime that has touched myself, is having the trunk of my car popped and my tools stolen.  In my lifetime, I have only met one person who has ever been mugged inside my city of birth.  While that might be presently changing, crime has been very low for a very long time in Louisville, Kentucky.  And the "gun culture" is quite dominant here.  I would say those facts are related, while you may disagree.  Doesn't matter.  All that any of us here ask of you is that you agree to disagree, and not force regulations upon us, based upon the idea that they sound good to your uninitiated concept of gun ownership.
Proof for that?  Because what I am seeing is opposite to that:
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/stolen-guns-increasingly-used-in-violent-crimes/

I can't prove a negative.  Since you felt that posting an opinion piece regarding this issue in the greater St. Louis area, you should prove the positive, if you actually believe that it is so.  Even if this opinion piece accurately describes the trend in St. Louis, that still would not mean that the issue is typical for Americans generally.

And I was talking about personal experience with gun crime as a minor, not the particular crime of gun theft anyway. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1649 on: July 11, 2016, 12:19:14 PM »
In this NYTimes article, the mayor of Dallas says he thinks maybe Texas should rethink its gun laws which allow people to openly carry "long rifles", aka AR-15's, in public. LOL!

Quote
Mayor Mike Rawlings of Dallas suggested in an interview on Sunday that, in the wake of the attack, he supported tightening the state’s gun laws to restrict the carrying of rifles and shotguns in public.

“There should be some way to say I shouldn’t be bringing my shotgun to a Mavericks game or to a protest because something crazy should happen,” said Mr. Rawlings, a Democrat. “I just want to come back to common sense.”

The state’s open-carry culture, the mayor said, had imperiled people on the streets of Dallas. “This is the first time — but a very concrete time — that I think a law can hurt citizens, police and not protect them,” he said, adding that he was not anti-gun and that he owned a shotgun himself. “I think it’s amazing when you think that there is a gunfight going on, and you are supposed to be able to sort who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.”............

The Dallas police chief, David O. Brown, described to CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday the amount of confusion the armed protesters initially caused.

He said the event had attracted “20 or 30 people” who “showed up with AR-15 rifles slung across their shoulder.”

“They were wearing gas masks,” Mr. Brown said. “They were wearing bulletproof vests and camo fatigues, for effect, for whatever reason.”

When the shooting started, “they began to run,” he said. And because they ran in the middle of the shooting, he said, the police on the scene viewed them as suspects. “Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests, they are suspects, until we eliminate that.”

“Doesn’t make sense to us, but that’s their right in Texas,” he said. He did not say whether he supported restricting the carrying of rifles on the streets.

It's crazy that something like that could happen at an event where all those law abiding Texans were there with their guns. After everything I've learned in this thread about how guns make us all safer, I'm really surprised. I would've thought that that BLM march would've been the safest place in the world. Maybe it's just that there weren't enough people carrying guns to make it safe. Maybe if 200 or 300 people had all been carrying AR-15's, then it would've been safe. :)

Funny how out of all those people carrying concealed weapons, and all those people open carrying assault rifles that day: none of them shot anybody. It was only one unhinged attacker who had passed all background checks, was well-trained with his weapon, and was not a member of a majority demographic.  So tell me how concealed carrying made this situation more dangerous? Or do you just "feel" it would have been better if those people you are afraid of who didn't shoot anyone also... didn't shoot anyone....?

Seems to me that the police did a fine job of not shooting innocent people in a chaotic situation. In my district, weapons are not allowed at 'public gatherings', etc. So I can't 'bring my shotgun to the Maverick's game'.  So amending the law in Texas with similar wording would eliminate this concern without unduly burdening the rights of the population.  Of course, that would be a compromise; something few people in this discussion are willing to do.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM