Neither knew that for a fact did they? ... there could have been more than one intruder/homeowner ...lowing wrote:
what crossfire? He was the only one in the house.
Hollowpoints don't have that different a trajectory.lowing wrote:
Well that is why they invented hollow points. Why would you come up with 1001 reasons to submit to criminals and not a single reason to defend yourself?Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, he broke in so it obviously wasn't a deterrent, and real bullets do have a dangerous range measured in miles.
They don't just stop and fall to the ground when they reach the edge of your property, plus American homes are mostly made of cardboard.
and no, not everyone will be deterred. Just makes it easier to know who to shoot.
Perhaps the intruder was aware that no one was home at the time he broke inDilbert_X wrote:
Strangely a gun-toting populace didn't deter the home-invader in the first place.
Couple of rules apply,Varegg wrote:
Neither knew that for a fact did they? ... there could have been more than one intruder/homeowner ...lowing wrote:
what crossfire? He was the only one in the house.
Plenty of scenarios comes to mind as to how a child for example can get caught in the crossfire when an intruder/homeowner tries to shoot eachother in what I gather is a very stressful enviroment ...
Ahhh, so if you own a gun you are crazy.....So much for a rational discussion with you on this topic.Dilbert_X wrote:
Hollowpoints don't have that different a trajectory.lowing wrote:
Well that is why they invented hollow points. Why would you come up with 1001 reasons to submit to criminals and not a single reason to defend yourself?Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, he broke in so it obviously wasn't a deterrent, and real bullets do have a dangerous range measured in miles.
They don't just stop and fall to the ground when they reach the edge of your property, plus American homes are mostly made of cardboard.
and no, not everyone will be deterred. Just makes it easier to know who to shoot.
I'd rather find a different way of deterring criminals than letting crazy people buy guns, like enforcing the laws and putting people in prison.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-09 04:45:57)
In every profession their are risks. If you choose crime as your profession, you will accept those risks.jsnipy wrote:
Perhaps the intruder was aware that no one was home at the time he broke inDilbert_X wrote:
Strangely a gun-toting populace didn't deter the home-invader in the first place.
No, just youlowing wrote:
so if you own a gun you are crazy
So in situation 3 you'd submit?1. know what you are shooting at
2. Know what is behind what you are shooting at.
3. Don't fire unless 1 and 2 are satisfied.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-09 04:49:19)
Cute rules and they work on paper but not IRL ... and if they did how do you explain all the accidents each year with guns, hell ... even a policeman teaching kids gun safety shot himself in the foot in a classroom full of kids ... and he was a proffesional was he not?lowing wrote:
Couple of rules apply,Varegg wrote:
Neither knew that for a fact did they? ... there could have been more than one intruder/homeowner ...lowing wrote:
what crossfire? He was the only one in the house.
Plenty of scenarios comes to mind as to how a child for example can get caught in the crossfire when an intruder/homeowner tries to shoot eachother in what I gather is a very stressful enviroment ...
1. know what you are shooting at
2. Know what is behind what you are shooting at.
3. Don't fire unless 1 and 2 are satisfied.
Again, why 1001 reasons to submit, and not a single reason to defend yourselves. That is an attitude I can not wrap my mind around
nope you are right that is not optimal, however if you are in a situation where it has happened, you are left with submission or defense. I choose defense.Dilbert_X wrote:
No-ones calling for submission lowing, just saying having firefights with high powered weapons, in the dark, in family homes, in residential neighbourhoods is possibly not the optimum solution.
You're also choosing to take risks with the lives of third parties.lowing wrote:
nope you are right that is not optimal, however if you are in a situation where it has happened, you are left with submission or defense. I choose defense.Dilbert_X wrote:
No-ones calling for submission lowing, just saying having firefights with high powered weapons, in the dark, in family homes, in residential neighbourhoods is possibly not the optimum solution.
Do you know the dangerous range of .22lr fired from a pistol? Go look at a packet.Also get it out of your mind that people are shooting Ak's and M4's in a military battle scenario. We are talking shotgun or pistol. Your assault weapon scenario does not fit with what we are discussing
you are right, you can not train out "stupid" 100% of the time. We are after all human. However, I refuse to sit back and let my home be invaded. Sorry. I have a choice, don't be a hater because you do not.Varegg wrote:
Cute rules and they work on paper but not IRL ... and if they did how do you explain all the accidents each year with guns, hell ... even a policeman teaching kids gun safety shot himself in the foot in a classroom full of kids ... and he was a proffesional was he not?lowing wrote:
Couple of rules apply,Varegg wrote:
Neither knew that for a fact did they? ... there could have been more than one intruder/homeowner ...
Plenty of scenarios comes to mind as to how a child for example can get caught in the crossfire when an intruder/homeowner tries to shoot eachother in what I gather is a very stressful enviroment ...
1. know what you are shooting at
2. Know what is behind what you are shooting at.
3. Don't fire unless 1 and 2 are satisfied.
Again, why 1001 reasons to submit, and not a single reason to defend yourselves. That is an attitude I can not wrap my mind around
Apply some chaos theory to your own logic lowing and you will see most things really aren't as simple as you think they are ... rules are great but only to the extent that they are being followed ...
Again, my family's life is already at risk when my home got invaded. Not because I defend it. God, your attitude is unbelievable. Let me ask you, do you even own a home? Do you own possessions that you bought yourself? Do you have a wife and kids? In other words, in your mind, do you have anything or anyone in your life worth protecting?Dilbert_X wrote:
You're also choosing to take risks with the lives of third parties.lowing wrote:
nope you are right that is not optimal, however if you are in a situation where it has happened, you are left with submission or defense. I choose defense.Dilbert_X wrote:
No-ones calling for submission lowing, just saying having firefights with high powered weapons, in the dark, in family homes, in residential neighbourhoods is possibly not the optimum solution.Do you know the dangerous range of .22lr fired from a pistol? Go look at a packet.Also get it out of your mind that people are shooting Ak's and M4's in a military battle scenario. We are talking shotgun or pistol. Your assault weapon scenario does not fit with what we are discussing
How about .45ACP?
really? like what?Varegg wrote:
There are things you can do to secure your home without guns you know
Passive measures like an alarm for example ...lowing wrote:
really? like what?Varegg wrote:
There are things you can do to secure your home without guns you know
Again, hollow points really don't have much less of a dangerous range than standard bullets.lowing wrote:
Again, my family's life is already at risk when my home got invaded. Not because I defend it. God, your attitude is unbelievable. Let me ask you, do you even own a home? Do you own possessions that you bought yourself? Do you have a wife and kids? In other words, in your mind, do you have anything or anyone in your life worth protecting?
Shoot hollow points. Plus, a .22 i not exactly the optimal home defense round
Sounds great, but now we are not talking about deterrence BEFORE a home invasion now are we? We are talking about a home invasion and what you will do in such an occurrence.Varegg wrote:
Passive measures like an alarm for example ...lowing wrote:
really? like what?Varegg wrote:
There are things you can do to secure your home without guns you know
Then I suggest you shoot the criminal and not the gun down the street.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, hollow points really don't have much less of a dangerous range than standard bullets.lowing wrote:
Again, my family's life is already at risk when my home got invaded. Not because I defend it. God, your attitude is unbelievable. Let me ask you, do you even own a home? Do you own possessions that you bought yourself? Do you have a wife and kids? In other words, in your mind, do you have anything or anyone in your life worth protecting?
Shoot hollow points. Plus, a .22 i not exactly the optimal home defense round
.22lr is a very low powered cartridge and has a lethal range measured in miles, .45 is many times more dangerous.
Apart from family do I have anything I think is worth risking blowing my neighbours kids head off in order to protect?
No. Even for family a knife or bat would be my first pick.
Would I want everyone in my street armed and ready to start spraying bullets around to protect their TV or porcelain miniatures?
Not likely.
no I don't want them to have guns, but until you come up with a way to keep guns out of their hands, do you mind if the rest of us protect ourselves and our families from them? Appreciate it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thing is, in any neighbourhood there is a sprinkling of criminals, drunks, crazies, the senile etc.
Do you want them having guns?
Having a gun under your pillow doesn't make you bulletproof you know.
Banks have alarms, stores have alarms, and yet, they get broken into......so much for your 100% alarm systems.Varegg wrote:
With the correct alarm and or other passive measures you can almost 100% prevent them from entering the house in the first place thus rendering the need for a gun and a situation where a gun would be needed to almost 0 ...
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-09 05:55:21)
Easy solution, don't live in or near an area infested with austrailians criminals.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thing is, in any neighbourhood there is a sprinkling of criminals, drunks, crazies, the senile etc.
Do you want them having guns?
Having a gun under your pillow doesn't make you bulletproof you know.
Last edited by UnkleRukus (2011-03-09 05:37:44)
