Arizona Congresswoman Shot

2011-01-11 14:37:14

#551

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

lowing wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
lowing wrote:

If I may: I suggest a Remington 870 tactical express. 7 shot pump action 18 inch barrel. Perfect for getting around doorways
870 is what I want but not shortened. I want to be able to trap shoot and duck hunt.
Oh you can do that with them as well. Did some trap shooting with mine and did pretty well.

But you had to choke im sure

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-01-11 14:37:32

#552

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6917|BC, Canada

presidentsheep wrote:
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens

I can definitely see the point in owning one, for home protection. I think people being able to carry them around in public is retarded though.

2011-01-11 14:38:45

#553

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

I don't think you're even listening to what he's saying.

Look, a gun isn't even necessarily lethal. That's what keeps getting missed in this discussion. If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.

Now, in the crazy legal system we have, you're actually better off killing an intruder here, but if our laws actually made any sense, then you could simply shoot to injure an intruder without fear of getting sued.

Going from there, if someone tries to attack you, you don't have to go for a lethal counterattack, whether it's with a gun or something else.

So, sheep's logic works even with a gun, although he seems to ignore that. The premise behind not trying to kill an aggressor is a sound one if you are skilled enough with your weapon and if other factors don't necessitate a fast kill.
a wounded animal is more dangerous than a none wounded animal. Sorry Turquoise. If I feel I need to draw down on a person it is a threat enough to use deadly force. I don't want to just piss him off by shooting him in the leg. Live criminals that get shot tend to want to shoot back. I see no reason to afford them that opportunity.
so if someone tries to mug you with a teaspoon your first reaction is to shoot them in the head?

Oh good god! Will someone please find a real argument for this poor lad?

2011-01-11 14:38:51

#554

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Nic wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
The other point people seem to keep on missing is, what about others skill with a gun. They keep referencing how great of marksmen they are, or that they would know exactly what to do.

Does everyone seem to think that every other gun carrier is going to be able to do the same?

I have seen people in the thread claiming to be a better trained shot that the cops?
Does this mean every non-police, gun carrier is a better shot than every cop? That would be pretty fucked up.

im an expert shot with the m16 and m249

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-01-11 14:39:08

#555

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

Nic wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
I can definitely see the point in owning one, for home protection. I think people being able to carry them around in public is retarded though.

That was my original point, there's no need to leave the house in the morning carrying a weapon. Defending your home is a bit of a grey area but not one i'd like to overcomplicate with guns if need be.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-01-11 14:39:54

#556

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6663|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
a wounded animal is more dangerous than a none wounded animal. Sorry Turquoise. If I feel I need to draw down on a person it is a threat enough to use deadly force. I don't want to just piss him off by shooting him in the leg. Live criminals that get shot tend to want to shoot back. I see no reason to afford them that opportunity.

That's one way of looking at it, but not all criminals are the same, just as not all situations are.

I prefer to weigh the situation. I realize it ultimately comes down to wits and perception, but I'm confident that I would be capable of making a rational decision to kill or not to kill if I was faced with a potentially fatal encounter. I don't automatically shoot to kill.

2011-01-11 14:40:43

#557

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:

I appreciate the potential for a gun to be non lethal, however the judgement to not kill someone with a gun isn't the same as with say a knife.
A knife is a tool, you can have one laying about the house, however a gun is designed to kill, it has no other real function it's a weapon.
You are such a gigantic moron its not even funny.
How so? I appreciate i'm going a bit ott to make a point but it's still valid.

because youre completely hung up on guns for no rational reason. A gun has one purpose. So what? So did swords.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-01-11 14:42:03

#558

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Nic wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
The other point people seem to keep on missing is, what about others skill with a gun. They keep referencing how great of marksmen they are, or that they would know exactly what to do.

Does everyone seem to think that every other gun carrier is going to be able to do the same?

I have seen people in the thread claiming to be a better trained shot that the cops?
Does this mean every non-police, gun carrier is a better shot than every cop? That would be pretty fucked up.

No one has made any of the claims you are arguing against.

What was said was, normal citizens probably go to the range more often than police officers are required to to stay qualified. Nothing more

2011-01-11 14:42:50

#559

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
Nic wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
what if he's carrying a nerf gun? where does this line get drawn? seems arbitrary to me.
The main point i'm trying to make here is that guns are purpose built to kill people and I don't see it as necessary for everyone to own one, they just seem to add complications to the problem if anything happens
I can definitely see the point in owning one, for home protection. I think people being able to carry them around in public is retarded though.
That was my original point, there's no need to leave the house in the morning carrying a weapon. Defending your home is a bit of a grey area but not one i'd like to overcomplicate with guns if need be.

If it makes you feel better, the percentage of americans that carry outside of their home is quite small.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-01-11 14:43:02

#560

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:
lowing wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

870 is what I want but not shortened. I want to be able to trap shoot and duck hunt.
Oh you can do that with them as well. Did some trap shooting with mine and did pretty well.
But you had to choke im sure

nope. straight bird shot, no choke

2011-01-11 14:43:48

#561

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6663|North Carolina

Nic wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
If you're skilled with a gun, you can make non-lethal shots.
The other point people seem to keep on missing is, what about others skill with a gun. They keep referencing how great of marksmen they are, or that they would know exactly what to do.

Does everyone seem to think that every other gun carrier is going to be able to do the same?

I have seen people in the thread claiming to be a better trained shot that the cops?
Does this mean every non-police, gun carrier is a better shot than every cop? That would be pretty fucked up.

That's a fair point. I think the earlier mentioning of Switzerland illustrates how training makes an armed populace more responsible.

I believe training requirements should be part of the process of getting a license. I'm pretty sure that some states already do this, but it would probably be best if all states did. Unless you've already served as a military contractor, an actual military member, or law enforcement, you probably need formal training to fully utilize a gun responsibly and effectively.

Granted, I admit that I personally have no formal training myself.

2011-01-11 14:45:13

#562

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
Nic wrote:

I can definitely see the point in owning one, for home protection. I think people being able to carry them around in public is retarded though.
That was my original point, there's no need to leave the house in the morning carrying a weapon. Defending your home is a bit of a grey area but not one i'd like to overcomplicate with guns if need be.
If it makes you feel better, the percentage of americans that carry outside of their home is quite small.

That's fine, I just really don't understand the mentality of those that do, it seems to me that they leave the house every morning with the intention to potentially murder someone.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-01-11 14:46:18

#563

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
a wounded animal is more dangerous than a none wounded animal. Sorry Turquoise. If I feel I need to draw down on a person it is a threat enough to use deadly force. I don't want to just piss him off by shooting him in the leg. Live criminals that get shot tend to want to shoot back. I see no reason to afford them that opportunity.
That's one way of looking at it, but not all criminals are the same, just as not all situations are.

I prefer to weigh the situation. I realize it ultimately comes down to wits and perception, but I'm confident that I would be capable of making a rational decision to kill or not to kill if I was faced with a potentially fatal encounter. I don't automatically shoot to kill.

I agree, however what other perception do you entertain when someone smashes your window and forces there way into your home at 3 in the morning and your kids are upstairs sleeping?

2011-01-11 14:47:29

#564

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6663|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
a wounded animal is more dangerous than a none wounded animal. Sorry Turquoise. If I feel I need to draw down on a person it is a threat enough to use deadly force. I don't want to just piss him off by shooting him in the leg. Live criminals that get shot tend to want to shoot back. I see no reason to afford them that opportunity.
That's one way of looking at it, but not all criminals are the same, just as not all situations are.

I prefer to weigh the situation. I realize it ultimately comes down to wits and perception, but I'm confident that I would be capable of making a rational decision to kill or not to kill if I was faced with a potentially fatal encounter. I don't automatically shoot to kill.
I agree, however what other perception do you entertain when someone smashes your window and forces there way into your home at 3 in the morning and your kids are upstairs sleeping?

True, kids make the situation tougher. I don't have any, so my reaction would be different from yours, understandably.

2011-01-11 14:47:37

#565

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:

That was my original point, there's no need to leave the house in the morning carrying a weapon. Defending your home is a bit of a grey area but not one i'd like to overcomplicate with guns if need be.
If it makes you feel better, the percentage of americans that carry outside of their home is quite small.
That's fine, I just really don't understand the mentality of those that do, it seems to me that they leave the house every morning with the intention to potentially murder someone.

Then you would be wrong in your perceptions. Period.

2011-01-11 14:49:24

#566

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6910|USA

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

That's one way of looking at it, but not all criminals are the same, just as not all situations are.

I prefer to weigh the situation. I realize it ultimately comes down to wits and perception, but I'm confident that I would be capable of making a rational decision to kill or not to kill if I was faced with a potentially fatal encounter. I don't automatically shoot to kill.
I agree, however what other perception do you entertain when someone smashes your window and forces there way into your home at 3 in the morning and your kids are upstairs sleeping?
True, kids make the situation tougher. I don't have any, so my reaction would be different from yours, understandably.

Actually, your perception should still be the same, unless of course you do not value your own life

2011-01-11 14:49:58

#567

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

If it makes you feel better, the percentage of americans that carry outside of their home is quite small.
That's fine, I just really don't understand the mentality of those that do, it seems to me that they leave the house every morning with the intention to potentially murder someone.
Then you would be wrong in your perceptions. Period.

How so? Why else would someone leave the house with a weapon? Even if it were for self defence, that means you still have to leave your home every morning with the belief that sometime that day you might have to kill another human being.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-01-11 14:50:08

#568

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6917|BC, Canada

lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
a wounded animal is more dangerous than a none wounded animal. Sorry Turquoise. If I feel I need to draw down on a person it is a threat enough to use deadly force. I don't want to just piss him off by shooting him in the leg. Live criminals that get shot tend to want to shoot back. I see no reason to afford them that opportunity.
That's one way of looking at it, but not all criminals are the same, just as not all situations are.

I prefer to weigh the situation. I realize it ultimately comes down to wits and perception, but I'm confident that I would be capable of making a rational decision to kill or not to kill if I was faced with a potentially fatal encounter. I don't automatically shoot to kill.
I agree, however what other perception do you entertain when someone smashes your window and forces there way into your home at 3 in the morning and your kids are upstairs sleeping?

That would most likely be a kill thing, but I would probably say something about stopping first or identifying themselves. Immediately shooting to kill is what gets family members killed.

Another situation:
Someone comes at you with a knife, bat, fists etc. from a distance.
Do you automatically shoot to kill, or do you draw your gun and say something along the lines of "are you stupid? get the hell out of here!"

Last edited by Nic (2011-01-11 14:50:43)

2011-01-11 14:53:04

#569

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6925

Anyone remember this? Go to 1:40.

Crazy L.A. Gun Fight Erupts During Riot

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/11550/motivator3402288.jpg

2011-01-11 14:53:35

#570

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6663|North Carolina

lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
I agree, however what other perception do you entertain when someone smashes your window and forces there way into your home at 3 in the morning and your kids are upstairs sleeping?
True, kids make the situation tougher. I don't have any, so my reaction would be different from yours, understandably.
Actually, your perception should still be the same, unless of course you do not value your own life

I don't think it's always a matter of life and death. Also, the consequences are different.

If someone breaks into my apartment and kills me, I'm pretty sure my brother would kill the intruder in retaliation.

If I was a father of a family, then I don't even want to chance my kids getting attacked or killed by an intruder. It's not that I don't value my own life -- it's that I realize if I die, the consequences are nowhere near as awful not having kids as opposed to having them.

If I really did feel that the intruder had murderous intentions, with or without being a father, I will shoot to kill. If I'm confident I can either injure or scare off the intruder, I won't.

Granted, I will say that our current legal system makes killing an intruder a preferable option oftentimes.

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-11 14:56:10)

2011-01-11 14:53:36

#571

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6441|Ireland

presidentsheep wrote:
So can everyone in America just agree to stop carrying guns around now and carry smoke alarms instead?

If you take my gun away I will run over you with my car, bludgen you with a smoke alarm, and then stab you in the face with a crowbar.

2011-01-11 14:54:33

#572

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6940|Disaster Free Zone

Nic wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

That's one way of looking at it, but not all criminals are the same, just as not all situations are.

I prefer to weigh the situation. I realize it ultimately comes down to wits and perception, but I'm confident that I would be capable of making a rational decision to kill or not to kill if I was faced with a potentially fatal encounter. I don't automatically shoot to kill.
I agree, however what other perception do you entertain when someone smashes your window and forces there way into your home at 3 in the morning and your kids are upstairs sleeping?
That would most likely be a kill thing, but I would probably say something about stopping first or identifying themselves. Immediately shooting to kill is what gets family members killed.

Another situation:
Someone comes at you with a knife, bat, fists etc. from a distance.
Do you automatically shoot to kill, or do you draw your gun and say something along the lines of "are you stupid? get the hell out of here!"

I roll my eyes and walk away.

2011-01-11 14:56:19

#573

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:

That was my original point, there's no need to leave the house in the morning carrying a weapon. Defending your home is a bit of a grey area but not one i'd like to overcomplicate with guns if need be.
If it makes you feel better, the percentage of americans that carry outside of their home is quite small.
That's fine, I just really don't understand the mentality of those that do, it seems to me that they leave the house every morning with the intention to potentially murder someone.

It's not murder.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-01-11 14:57:51

#574

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6917|BC, Canada

JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

If it makes you feel better, the percentage of americans that carry outside of their home is quite small.
That's fine, I just really don't understand the mentality of those that do, it seems to me that they leave the house every morning with the intention to potentially murder someone.
It's not murder.

What if you miss and hit an innocent?

2011-01-11 14:59:44

#575

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6219|Places 'n such

JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

If it makes you feel better, the percentage of americans that carry outside of their home is quite small.
That's fine, I just really don't understand the mentality of those that do, it seems to me that they leave the house every morning with the intention to potentially murder someone.
It's not murder.

What if someone makes a mistake and shoots the guy who'd disarmed the gunman and was just holding his gun? Or what if someone shoots at another person who'd started shooting at the gunman? What if someone only has a toy gun and therefore no means to actually kill anyone? Or a baseball bat?
I just can't see how adding more people with guns into situations like this would help in any way, again it might just be the environment I grew up in.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

BF2S Forums Arizona Congresswoman Shot

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Nic wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Nic wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Nic wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Nic wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Nic wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Nic wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Nic wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Board footer