2002 going on 1984 [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Navaron

2002-12-28, 09:30 PM

Aviation security and people giving up their rights (which is where the gun thing came from). I think that I consider the right to bear arms the last line of defense. What areas do you think we've given up too many rights. (Sorry D this is mostly American).

I know one thing that made me mad beyond all belief was Campaign Finance Reform. I know this isn't so much in relation to 1984, but it is a gross violation of our rights. The law says no political adds can be bought about a candidate/idea within x amount of days before an election. It says that "Special interest" groups can't advertise.

You guys know about all the bad press that Video Games are getting in relation to the sniper shootings and stuff, well heres an example.

We want to put out a commercial showing gamers as normal people and refudiate the current slander that games get. Well I don't have enough money to buy a nation wide commercial, neither do you. But, lets say we all do. So we combine that money and buy an add, well we can't show it within 60/90 days of an election where anyone who has voiced an opinion on the subject is running for election. So we, "the special interest group", have effectively been silence.

However, Ted Turner, with all of his money, can buy an anti game commercial and show it nation wide because he is a single individual, and not letting him show it would violate his free speech.

What happened to the freedom of assembly? People can't band together in opposition or support of an idea within a certain time frame now, all because of a hot word that gets votes :"Special interest group". You and I are special interest groups.

Sandtaco

2002-12-28, 09:36 PM

I tried to shoot a rabbit with a err... .22 this weekend, yeah well I'm never firing a gun again :lol: My shot was so damn crappy :p

Hamma

2002-12-28, 09:38 PM

The government is corrupt and controlled by $$

Welcome to the USA, I've stopped paying attention to politics, pisses me off too much. :p

Navaron

2002-12-28, 09:49 PM

Hamma,

I know you're not into politics but do you really believe that? Just wondering.

Hamma

2002-12-28, 11:21 PM

I believe its all controlled by money, yes. Our congressmen arent voting the way of the people, they are voting the way of their party.

Its all a big mess in my opinon

�io

2002-12-28, 11:28 PM

Heh news flash gang the world is controlled by money. Why do you think we have so many problems like little kids in 3rd world countries starving meanwhile some movie actor gives a half ass perfomance and gets a "small" 15million for his role. :flamemad:

Hamma

2002-12-28, 11:30 PM

Money is lose!

MrVicchio

2002-12-29, 12:03 AM

Guns dont kill people, I kill people..

Guns in the cockpit are a great idea. MOST of your airline pilots are former military pilots with a clue about what to do with them. The rest, competant proffesionals.

My favorite T-Shirt in HS said:

"In these here United states we have TEXAS"

And on the back:

"Then them other 49 states..."

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 01:30 AM

Do the words explosive decompresion mean anything to anyone here.

MrVicchio

2002-12-29, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Dio
I hear those a lot less then gun stories. Any way you play it guns just mean more dangers in a home then anything else.

Anyhoo let's stop the gun thing and get back to guns in planes. That is the point of this thread no ? :)

And to all the other non-gun types, do yourself a HUGE favor, and go read up on the actual stats on guns and gun violence in the home.

YES, kids shoot people(WHICH is tottaly preventable by mature people), yes people shoot thier wives.. (those people would just knife em if they didn't have a gun and you know it)

Guns in the home are no more dangerous then anyother tool. You disrespect the gun, and the gun disrespects you.

I forget the name sof the twons, but two towns in Geroria(I think..) anyhoots both had different ideas on guns and crime. Town A passed a law basically forbidding guns, not entirely, but made it REAL difficult to own one. Town B on the other hand, passed a law saying that ALL heads of house must own a loaded weapon and keep it in thier homes..

Guess what? Town A saw an INCREASE in violent crimes, muder, and crimes with guns....

Town B saw a marked DECREASE in all forms of crime, and coupled with thier gun safety progrram, saw a DECREASE in accidentla, and in home gun accidents/crimes..

Amazing no?

Go look it up on google, I am too tired to so atm.

Strygun

2002-12-29, 09:13 AM

OK, I havn't read the WHOLE thread, just skimmed it (i'm tired...) ............anyway here's my question.

Wouldn't a pistol in the cockpit be dangerous? What happens when either
a. the gun accidently fires and blows a hole in the (hull in aircraft?) wall and then depressurizes the plane, sucking the pilots and everyone else out... or

b. they fire at the hijacker and miss and then scenario a. happens again...?

Hamma

2002-12-29, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Incompetent
Do the words explosive decompresion mean anything to anyone here.
:rofl:

Flashingfish

2002-12-29, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
And to all the other non-gun types, do yourself a HUGE favor, and go read up on the actual stats on guns and gun violence in the home.

YES, kids shoot people(WHICH is tottaly preventable by mature people), yes people shoot thier wives.. (those people would just knife em if they didn't have a gun and you know it)

Guns in the home are no more dangerous then anyother tool. You disrespect the gun, and the gun disrespects you.

The problem is, guns are designed to hurt, and kill. There is no other purpose for them, whereas a baseball bat, a knife, etc. all have other non-violent purposes. That's why I think a gun should only be used when it's absolutely necessary, i.e. in a war.

I forget the name sof the twons, but two towns in Geroria(I think..) anyhoots both had different ideas on guns and crime. Town A passed a law basically forbidding guns, not entirely, but made it REAL difficult to own one. Town B on the other hand, passed a law saying that ALL heads of house must own a loaded weapon and keep it in thier homes..

Guess what? Town A saw an INCREASE in violent crimes, muder, and crimes with guns....

I thought they made it really difficult to own one...

Town B saw a marked DECREASE in all forms of crime, and coupled with thier gun safety progrram, saw a DECREASE in accidentla, and in home gun accidents/crimes..

You haven't told us the original stats for these towns, so this source is unreliable :rolleyes:
But, even if there was more crime with less guns, then how do places like England cope? We don't have people running around causing havoc 24/7. This might be because we are used to not having guns.. or something, and maybe our people are just more mature and less violent :)

My point is, crime shouldn't have to be stopped with guns or with no guns, it should be stopped by making people believe crime is bad, therefore preventing them from doing it.

Did I just say all that? =/

-edit- ok that come out wrong - changing layout

MrVicchio

2002-12-29, 01:54 PM

Ha, Didn't London just see a huge rise in crime after they banned practically all guns over there.. I remember reading that in about 12 different places....

The Gerogia twons, I BELIVE I read that off of the 7 myths of gun control book/site or a related one, then checked it out from some other sources...

GUNS aren't just made to hurt maim and kill my friend, I love to target shoot. Perfectly legal, nice non-hurting way to enjoy ones self. I also love to hunt.....

People are killid more often by cars then by guns, should we outlaw cars too?

Two of my favorite Pro-gun lines are :

"An armed society is a polite society"

"When guns are made illegal, only the criminals have guns...."

Hamma

2002-12-29, 02:47 PM

Charlton Heston for President!1

:D

Navaron

2002-12-29, 04:39 PM

"Do the words explosive decompresion mean anything to anyone here."

No. Does the word oxymoron mean anything to you?

A firearm in the cockpit could unload an entire clip into the side of a plane, along the rivets and a damn thing wouldn't happen. The plane would not decompress, people would not be sucked out. That's a joke. Why wouldn't terrorist just bring hatchets with them and cut a hole in the skin? Why bother blowing the plane up mid air.

What about bird strikes, there are multiple accounts of planes hitting geese at full takeoff power, and the geese entering and exiting parts of the plane. A goose is a shit ton bigger than the bullet.

Also, if you you fired at a highjacker 4 feet awa from you, then you are blind if you miss. Besides, pilots have good vision.

Also, heres a worst case scenario -

Highjacker enters the cockpit and takes the gun and kills the pilots, flies plane to destination X. Alternative, Highjacker enters cockpit kills pilots with object z and then flies plane to destination x. Same difference, except at least the pilots have a decisive factor.

SandTrout

2002-12-29, 06:56 PM

"Explosive decompresion" is a bunch of bullshit(pardon my french) made up by Hollywood. There are accutaly systems on a plane that let in and out air to maintain cabin pressure constantly, and can compensate for a bullet hole(even from a .50 cal). Armed pilots would deter hijacking atempts and would be the last line of defence against terrorists

I'm from Texas and I'm afaid of Chicago and LA. Why? Because they have some of the strictest gun control measures in the country, and also some of the highest crime rates. But look at Texas, we have the most relaxed gun control laws in the country, yet one of the lowest crime rates per-capita(Im not 100% on the crime rate in TX, but I'm pretty damn sure its lower than Chicago and LA).

Yes, sometimes kids play with guns and have accidents, but kids also play with fireworks and power tools and have accidents. They also get hit by cars.

My Dad bough a 12 gauge shotgun and .22 rifle when I was 11 and put them in a gun safe. The next day he took them out, and showed them to me, my brother, and my sister. They were unloaded of course, but he taught us to respect a gun, no matter what calibre it is, and even if its unloaded(in case it is loaded and you didnt know). He then took us out to a fireing range to shoot them. I've never touched them outside of the range, except when I was cleaning them at home.

The moral is, if you don't want to have your kids messing with your guns, teach them how to use them properly and carefuly. I will get a handgun when I am old enough(and if they're still leagal), but I hope I never have to use it. If I have kids, I'll take them to the shooting range so they learn to respect it.

Navaron

2002-12-29, 06:59 PM

Thanks for the backup on the gun thing, but wtf is "accutaly systems". I do this stuff every day and I've never heard of that.

Warborn

2002-12-29, 07:24 PM

The problem with gun accidents isn't the gun. It's the person having the accident. If the gun were out of the picture, they'd find something else to hurt themself on.

As for guns in planes, I believe pilots should be allowed to have them. Honestly, why the hell not? If there's a tangible risk of the pilot encountering hijackers, they should be equipped with some realistic way to defend themselves. You don't ask your policemen or soldiers to do their job without being properly armed, so you should expect that of pilots.

mistled

2002-12-29, 07:49 PM

Uh oh... warborn and nav are agreeing on something.

Navaron

2002-12-29, 09:04 PM

Should we mark that on a calander somewhere???

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 09:09 PM

Planes will blow up if the windows are the wrong shape, and last i looked a bullet was slightly more lethal then a rectangle.
Why wouldn't terrorist just bring hatchets with them and cut a hole in the skin? Why bother blowing the plane up mid air.
because hatchets are big
What about bird strikes, there are multiple accounts of planes hitting geese at full takeoff power, and the geese entering and exiting parts of the plane. A goose is a shit ton bigger than the bullet.
A sparrow took down a fighter at an air show once. A goose was not designed to kill people.

mistled

2002-12-29, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Incompetent
A goose was not designed to kill people.

And a handgun is not designed to crash planes. What's your point??

Navaron

2002-12-29, 09:17 PM

"and last i looked a bullet was slightly more lethal then a rectangle. "

HUH?

The windows they put in planes are the right shape, thats not a real problem.

I'm gonna have to see some proof that a sparrow took down a fighter. I don't believe that for a second. That jet would have never be type certified.

"A goose was not designed to kill people." HUH?

OK I'll give you the hatchet thing, how about pocket knives. Planes don't go down easy simple as that. Even if the cabin depressurizes it's no big deal. You CAN breathe at that altitude. I'm not sure where you going, I just don't follow you, could you clarify.

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 09:23 PM

A bullet is designed to cause damage

mistled

2002-12-29, 09:25 PM

Not to a passenger jet, it's not.

Flashingfish

2002-12-29, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Ha, Didn't London just see a huge rise in crime after they banned practically all guns over there.. I remember reading that in about 12 different places....

Ok I suppose I can't argue with that =]

GUNS aren't just made to hurt maim and kill my friend, I love to target shoot. Perfectly legal, nice non-hurting way to enjoy ones self. I also love to hunt.....

Hunting is still killing.... and target shooting is mimicking shooting living things, seeing as that's their primary purpose.

People are killid more often by cars then by guns, should we outlaw cars too?

Like I said before, cars aren't designed to kill, so no.

And this is going to go on forever....

Navaron

2002-12-29, 09:37 PM

"and target shooting is mimicking shooting living things, seeing as that's their primary purpose"

Why cant you shoot dead things?

�io

2002-12-29, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Why cant you shoot dead things?

:lol:

I love that quote. You should put that in your sig. :p

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 09:45 PM

Damage is damage

The sparrow was sucked into an engine airtake, i can't find shit about it though so i will concede the point though, the only thing that comes up is some ukranian crash a few months ago. I saw it on "worst air disasters" or some such crap on the discovery channel.

DC-10s blew up because of the windows, it just an example of how fragile an airliner is.

Edit: found a different one though, scroll down to 1975 http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Science/Transportation/Aviation/AirDisasters/

Edit: It wasn't a DC-10, fuck i feel stupid because i can't remember what it was
Another Edit: It was the Comet (http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/comet.htm), it's out of date but it still happened

mistled

2002-12-29, 09:48 PM

"...and target shooting is mimicking shooting living things, seeing as that's their primary purpose. "

Isn't planetside mimicking shooting living things?? :eek:

Navaron

2002-12-29, 10:05 PM

The deHavilland comet was the biggest coffin with wings ever. It was the first jet, so of course shit didn't work. That plane is the reason we have the FAA now.

I don't think a DC-10 blew up because of windows. Regardless, no one but 3rd world countries fly dc10s. (Wait, I think i understand your edit.)

I was referring to modern aircraft which have to pass a full goose through (or can effectively prove they can divert) the turbines. Nothing can take them down. I've seen lotsa pics where a flock of geese was hit and they entered the cockpit and even travelled through the cabin to first class, those planes stayed airborne and didn't depressurize.

I think the point was that a bullet wouldn't destabilize a plane even in a worse case scenario.

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 10:12 PM

Geese don't fly very high, its when the hull is breached up at 35,000/40,000 feet that the you have problems.

Navaron

2002-12-29, 10:17 PM

You have less problems because there is less atmospheric pressure - nothing to crush the hull. Remember that flight 5 years ago where the top half of the passenger cabin came off at cruising altitude, those guys landed the plane safely and only the people who came out of the plane died (It was EgyptAir i think). Remember to remind me not to fly EgyptAir, that's where all of the most horrible aviation deaths started.

Lets get back on topic. WHat freedoms have we lost?

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 10:26 PM

It's Explosive DEcompression, the hull is not crushed, its ripped apart from the inside.

But as far as the topic, i think that guns should be at least moderatly hard to get, at least in America. Most Americans are lazy bastards who don't believe they need such worthless things like "caution." (i am american)

Navaron

2002-12-29, 10:32 PM

"Explosive DEcompression" - You're making this up right? The physics aren't there. A pressurized cabin is not pressurized to the point of explosion if punctured.

"Most Americans are lazy bastards who don't believe they need such worthless things like "caution." " Then they won't take the time and effort to get a firearm and permit. Regardless, don't they deserve the right to protect themselves?

MrVicchio

2002-12-29, 10:36 PM

Guys, a sparrow can bring down a fighter, yes. Goes into the air intake... especially a single engine fighter. Or, if he is doing a high speed lox level pass. Say 50 feet 500 knots... thats a lot of kinetic energy. My dad was a fighter pilot, and well, hee can tell ya, in the right circumstances, it can happen.

Guns are o more dangerous then the person holding it.

If you don't have a clue, don't touch it. If you have kids, teach em to respect adn know what to do, then lock em up.

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 10:38 PM

It is when your 40,000 feet up in a 20/30 year old airframe.

No they don't, because thats not what will happen if you give them a gun

Navaron

2002-12-29, 10:46 PM

K

1 "It is when your 40,000 feet up in a 20/30 year old airframe"

I'm pretty sure a) that that old of a plane can't cruise at those altitudes and b) they couldn't pressurize nearly that much. I remember reading about how they had to have oxygen tanks in the cockpit back then becasue the cabins couldn't remain pressurized.

2 "No they don't, because thats not what will happen if you give them a gun"

Who, huh?

3 "sparrow can bring down a fighter, yes. Goes into the air intake"

No. Even vietnam fighters didn't have this problem. The air intake on 99.9999999% of jets, especially fighter jets, is under the cowling. So the bird would have to fly around inside the cowling, then turn and get into the intake. Now birds in the plane, preflight, can cause this problem. This does happen, but is because of poor preflight checks. A bird will not take out almost any plane, even cessnas and pipers. This is what I study all day every day. I know what I'm talking about.

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 11:07 PM

1.) Most commercial planes are that old and they do fly that high, it doesn't matter how long they stay there because that is when a smart highjacker would take the plane, and thus, that is when the gun will be shot.

2.) Normal people, they won't use a gun for defence, they will shove it in there bedside table and shoot themselves on accident

3.) A bird going into the air intake of a fighter going mach 2 will have a very good chance of taking it down

Navaron

2002-12-29, 11:13 PM

1) 777s don't cruise at 40000, spy planes fly at 44000. Regardless, a bullet hole will not bring down a plane. I've talked with the board of ALPA about this personally. I know it as a fact. I'm not trying to argue but it's a fact I know.

2)Ok normal people aren't that stupid.

3)"A bird going into the air intake of a fighter going mach 2 will have a very good chance of taking it down"

Did you not read my post? Bird would have to fly faster than mach 2 to enter the air intake from behind, if a bird can do that it deserves to take down a plane.

This stuff isn't conjecture it's facts and physics. I simply can't happen.

Lets start something else - Incomp, Vic - what freedoms don't you have now you had two years ago? What do you think about CFR?

Incompetent

2002-12-29, 11:33 PM

1.) I'm willing to end it, we're never going to agree on this.

2.) I fear you overestimate the inteligence of normal people

3.) If the plane is moving fast enough a birdstrike anywhere will cause serious problems.

I don't think i have lost much freedom, and the freedom i lost is gone for a damn good reason.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:38 AM

They had a Phantom go donw in Seymor Johnson, cause blue jay I belive got sucked in on take off... (Dad flew the F-4E)

Also, His best friend took a 12 lbs (thier gestamite from the damge) Duck into the lower right dside of the cockpit, and they manged to bring the bird back.. looked like a giant can opener had been used on the plane.

SandTrout

2002-12-30, 02:10 AM

It has been stated on many occasions from various sorces that explosive decompresion is a myth made up by holywood for to reason of entertainment. If a fighter is Going mach 2 and hits just about anything bigger than dust, some dammage will be done. Most bullets from riffles don't go near Mach 2, and a Sparrow is a decent size larger than most bullets.

None the less, Airliners dont go near the speed of sound(with some exceptions sush as the concord) and they dont go nearly as high as millitary craft. Airliners are old, this is true. Most are around 15 years old I think, but theses were made better than a DC-10, and are well maintained. Also, DC-10s exploded because of metalic fatigue caused by the repeated change in preasure. Eventualy and inevitably the Hull buckled. The airliners of today hare held to standards set because of the failure of the DC-10.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 08:09 AM

Explosive decompression where the plane is completely destoyed is a myth, i'm not saying that its going to be a fireball in the sky. But if you put a punch a hole in something pressurized at 35,000 feet all of the air is going to rush to that singular point. And air is heavy, so if it wants to get out, its going to make a bigger hole to get out, and it could very well throw the plane into a spin in the process.

Terrorists are going to hijack the most vulnerable aircraft at the most vulnerable times, with the most people onboard, they might be pure evil, but they are not stupid. That means that you are going to be shooting at the highest altitude, in the oldest planes, with the most people. If you can shoot a gun it one plane and you can't in another, or only at some altitudes, you can be damn sure that they won't be stupid enough to hijack the plane when they can be shot at. Give the pilot a knife or some sort of thrown weapon for protection.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 09:51 AM

I believe that guns are in no way necessary for citizens to defend themselves. The US situation is merely an aberration brought on by specific circumstances, including the outmoded idea that guns are needed by the citizens of the most heavily armed nation in the world (what was it, 2 million soldiers?) to defend against vaguely defined villains ("Commies" for instance) and the idea that order can only be maintained with deadly force.

If guns are so good at preventing crime, why does the US have such awful crime statistics? If the weapon does not matter, why are guns the main way of committing murder in all but 6 states? (and these are states with very low numbers of murders, not states like California, in which more people are killed by guns alone than are murdered in the entire UK)

Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://149.101.22.40/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomOneYearofData.cfm)

It is clear that the weapon DOES matter, very much so. You say, "if guns were illegal, criminals would still use them". I say, "if criminals didn't know that they're risking being shot by police and citizens, they wouldn't need guns". Really, it's as simple as that. That is the difference between the 40-odd people shot a year in the UK and the 8259 shot in the US.

Where do you suppose the vast numbers of illegal guns floating around the US come from? They're stolen from foolish "law-abiding citizens" who keep buying them. Maybe if every household didn't have a gun, the number of illegal guns would also go down. It's not rocket science.

The very idea that just because someone is trying to steal from you gives you the right to execute them on the spot is utterly repulsive to me, and also illogical under a legal system by which a burglar who injured himself falling through a skylight successfully sued the owner of the house for injuring him.

Usually in the standard "a criminal is stealing from my house" scenario, the "citizen" gets shot with his own gun, or shoots one of his family, or in some other way makes the situation worse. It is very rare that the "citizen" manages to bring the situation to a satisfactory close by using a gun. Sure, maybe if everyone in the US was a Vietnam veteran with 20 years military experience, the situation would be better, but they aren't, and it isn't, so the "they just need more gun training and better guns" argument is a complete fallacy.

The self-perpetuating cycle whereby the "citizens" bring in more and deadlier guns in order to combat the "criminals" who merely steal the guns from the "citizens" resulting in an even nastier stand-off at a higher level is one that is as stupid and saddening as it is unnecessary.

Maybe if you stopped whining about supposed "rights" and thought more about how many people die every year to support such a ridiculous and unnecessary system you'd come closer to a better society.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 10:02 AM

Ahh the british sense of logic!

Granted, we DO have more deaths per year by guns then in the UK... damn, could it be that we are a nation of 210 million and counting... the UK has how many people?

Also, I would like to point out, once again, that you guys took away basically... All guns. Not only that, if someone DID legally have a gun, and SHOT someone who had broken into thier home... chances are, they would go to prison (or atleast get sued).

The one thing I find most funny is, you talk about us, yet when you banned guns over there, the rate of violent crimes spiked upwards, and is still hoigher then it was before, even your cops are carrying guns now.

But I disgress,

Your comment about Americans needing guns to fight commies... As a the source of our "misguided belief that guns are neccassary"

No, thats not the source, the source actually, is BRITIAN! Our founding Fathers so firmly belived that it was the citizens right to self defense that they added it into the Constitution, ya know, the 2nd Amendment.

WHY? When tyranny is on the rise, the first thing that happens is the citizens are stripped of their own weapons. That is the source of AMERICAN gun ownership. Not communism, fear of another British Monoarch or the like trying to gain power ove rhte people.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 10:07 AM

:stupid: Bingo - I didn't have time or energy to find all the flaws in the last few posts - thanks VIC

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by MrVicchio

Granted, we DO have more deaths per year by guns then in the UK... damn, could it be that we are a nation of 210 million and counting... the UK has how many people?

You're not wriggling out of it that easily. The UK has 58 million people. The US has 3.62 times as many people. However, in the US, 8259 people are killed by guns yearly, while in the UK, 40 are. You cannot attribute a TWO HUNDRED-FOLD increase in gun deaths to a quadrupling of the population being looked at!

Also, I would like to point out, once again, that you guys took away basically... All guns. Not only that, if someone DID legally have a gun, and SHOT someone who had broken into thier home... chances are, they would go to prison (or atleast get sued).

Exactly as it should be. Murderers should go to prison.

The one thing I find most funny is, you talk about us, yet when you banned guns over there, the rate of violent crimes spiked upwards, and is still hoigher then it was before, even your cops are carrying guns now.

Our cops do not carry guns routinely. This is utterly false.

But I disgress,

Your comment about Americans needing guns to fight commies... As a the source of our "misguided belief that guns are neccassary"

No, thats not the source, the source actually, is BRITIAN! Our founding Fathers so firmly belived that it was the citizens right to self defense that they added it into the Constitution, ya know, the 2nd Amendment.

I had felt that since that was centuries ago, I would use a more recent example. I am aware that my country and yours have gone to war, but is this really relevant to the argument? Or are you afraid that Britain will invade you tomorrow?

WHY? When tyranny is on the rise, the first thing that happens is the citizens are stripped of their own weapons. That is the source of AMERICAN gun ownership. Not communism, fear of another British Monoarch or the like trying to gain power ove rhte people.

Excuse me while I die laughing. The country with an army of two million soldiers and a military budget of enormous proportions is afraid to the degree of feeling that citizens militias will be necessary to repel a country that had a tough time taking on ARGENTINA? You're a jittery lot, aren't you?

Navaron

2002-12-30, 10:24 AM

"Excuse me while I die laughing. The country with an army of two million soldiers and a military budget of enormous proportions is afraid to the degree of feeling that citizens militias will be necessary to repel a country that had a tough time taking on ARGENTINA? You're a jittery lot, aren't you?"

I have to go to work but -

I can safely say, America doesn't fear Eggland at *all*.

The purpose of having guns, and MrVicchio's point, is to repel that vast army and government from becoming a dicatorship like england used to be. If the citizens can defend themselves then the government is much less likely to overstep its bounds.

More later.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Excuse me while I die laughing. The country with an army of two million soldiers and a military budget of enormous proportions is afraid to the degree of feeling that citizens militias will be necessary to repel a country that had a tough time taking on ARGENTINA? You're a jittery lot, aren't you?"

I have to go to work but -

I can safely say, America doesn't fear Eggland at *all*.

That was MY point. I was saying how silly and out-of-date such a fear would be. Such a thing should not be brought up in a modern debate.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 10:33 AM

Okay, I am not gonna do the quote thing, I am just gonna reply here, point by point.

1: Yes, you guys do have a lower gun crime rate... But you have a higher non-gun violent crime rate, and its increasing... (I looked this up)

2: (quoting you here) "Exactly as it should be. Murderers should go to prison."

Uhmmmm... if someone breaks into my home, and I shoot them... its self defense not murder... I don't know what else to say here, uhm, thats just the most asinine position that the victim is a murderer...

3: Our cops do not carry guns routinely. This is utterly false.

Okay, but they used to never carry guns, now they do, atleast some of the time...

4: I had felt that since that was centuries ago, I would use a more recent example. I am aware that my country and yours have gone to war, but is this really relevant to the argument? Or are you afraid that Britain will invade you tomorrow?

You were stating the source of our gun culture, can't use recent history as the "source", maybe as an aggrivating example. And no, we don't fear you, your neighbors across the way tho.. with that EU gig are getting a little worrisome tho.

5: Excuse me while I die laughing. The country with an army of two million soldiers and a military budget of enormous proportions is afraid to the degree of feeling that citizens militias will be necessary to repel a country that had a tough time taking on ARGENTINA? You're a jittery lot, aren't you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess you missed the point, its not another country, that is what the military is for, its Tyranny IN our country that guns are there to protect against, not outtside invaders. Tho, canada is welcome to try... :P

Navaron

2002-12-30, 10:37 AM

"Tho, canada is welcome to try... :P"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I can see their ski sled tanks and flapjack helicopters coming across the border now. HAHAHAHA

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 10:39 AM

How was England a dictatorship?

Uhmmmm... if someone breaks into my home, and I shoot them... its self defense not murder... I don't know what else to say here, uhm, thats just the most asinine position that the victim is a murderer...

This is what really annoys me. Self defence is to shoot them, and potentially kill them? I just don't understand the logic. Sure, if that said burglar was about to shoot you, and there was nowhere for you to run, I might understand, but just shooting someone because they broke in? Please.

Okay, but they used to never carry guns, now they do, atleast some of the time...

Yeah let me see.... the guards in the airport and.... a couple of gun squads. Not every policeman you see walking on the street.

I can see their ski sled tanks and flapjack helicopters coming across the border now. HAHAHAHA

What it is with you americans and constantly insulting Canada?

Hamma

2002-12-30, 10:42 AM

What is with all the political threads recently?

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 10:44 AM

No idea. I didn't start it! /me points :)

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 10:46 AM

Fish... didn't you hear about thier premier eitiorialst writting that Canada is morally superior to the USA.. they rib us, we rib them....

This is what really annoys me. Self defence is to shoot them, and potentially kill them? I just don't understand the logic. Sure, if that said burglar was about to shoot you, and there was nowhere for you to run, I might understand, but just shooting someone because they broke in? Please.

Uhm... okay, someone breaks n to your home. Are you gonna ask em what thier intentions are? How do you know if he is a murderer, a rapist... hell he has NO right to BE in your home. Entering a mans home illegally with the intention tosteal means your life is forfit. If he catches you, tough luck, shouldn't have broken in.

How was England a dictatorship?

Back in the 1770's, they were. Or close enough. Tyranny by the crown, and thus we rebelled, and became the USA. History an, old history, but thats how we saw it.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 10:50 AM

Shoot does not equal kill. If someone breaks into your house and you kill them you should go to jail. A man with a bullet in his knee is not very dangerous.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Back in the 1770's, they were. Or close enough. Tyranny by the crown, and thus we rebelled, and became the USA. History an, old history, but thats how we saw it.

So your country seceded from ours, leading to a bloody war? And let's see, your forcible retaking of the Southern States makes you what, morally superior? And don't say "slavery" unless you really believe it. However, expect a spanking.

And last I looked, the penalty for robbery was a jail sentence, not death. Unless you're in Texas, I suppose. I hear their legal system is subsidised by Montgomery Burns. :D

If it's a case of self-defense, then yes, you are justified in defending yourself. However, shooting a man solely for breaking in is murder and should be treated as such.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 10:55 AM

The south had no right to cecced from the nation. WE didn't retake it, for it wasn't thiers to "have".

And yes, we broke away, and it did lead to a war. All we wanted was representation, but the King said no...

Hamma

2002-12-30, 10:57 AM

wow, now we are talking about shit that happened hundreds of years ago.

This could get interesting

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 10:57 AM

You didn't like the taxes.

And how exactly did the South not have the right to rule themselves?

Are you not seeing the similarity here?

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Incompetent
Shoot does not equal kill. If someone breaks into your house and you kill them you should go to jail. A man with a bullet in his knee is not very dangerous.

Guys, okay, here is a little story for ya...

I was house sitting for my father. A guy broke into the house. My wife and kids were in bed with me. I heard some noise, so I grabbed my dads 9mm and went to investigate. The bad guy saw me first, and shot, not once, but 3 times with glock, and missed (duh or I wouldn't be here...) anyhoots, I fired back. Hit him in the face, just below his right eye. I don't reget that one bit. The guy had been linked to the raping of a 5 year old and the murder/rape of an 80year old woman.

Shooting someone in the knee is hollywood crap. Think about it, its dark, you've got adrenaline flowing, you don't think,"Man I should wound this guy, he brok in, but it would be wrong to kill" No, you're thinking "F U man, you are going down." Doubly so when they shoot first.

I believe in the right to defend ones property. Like I said, you break into someones home, and they kill you.. sucks to be you, you took that risk breaking in.

Ever hear this? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness" Originally it was to be the "pursuit of property" but they changed it to hapiness cause it sounded better lol. Anyway, the founding fathers felt the ownership, and protection of land was one of mans greatest rights. And so do I.

BTW this is a great, no slamming/flamming debate of ideas and positions, as long as it stays that way, cool.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 11:03 AM

Just because someone is in your home without you giving them permission gives you no right to shoot them.

By that logic a park warden could shoot a man for walking on the grass because he might be trying to kill the squirrels!

Um, no.

If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't shoot them (well I don't have a gun, but if I did I wouldn't), I would just try and phone the police.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's actually pretty emotionally difficult to shoot someone. It would be for me anyway. Maybe it's different for a lot of Americans, but is this just because they're jus so used to having guns and seeing them everyday? And seeing people die regularly? Guns = bad.

-edit- this is so fast everyone is posting at the same time...

MrVicchio, I don't understand why you shot his face. Sure there must have been adrenaline, but if you do shoot someone in the leg, it's going to hurt. A lot. So much that it's difficult for the said person to shoot back (and seeing he missed you before, it makes his chances lower). But the face....

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by BonnieDundee
You didn't like the taxes.

And how exactly did the South not have the right to rule themselves?

Are you not seeing the similarity here?

It wasn't the Taxes so much as we had no say in them. BIG differnce.

As for the south, that is a debateable point, I, as a southerner, was raised that it was OK, but I know that it would have been disasterous for both sides, and the good side won. Slavery WAS a part of it, make no mistake about that.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Flashingfish
Just because someone is in your home without you giving them permission gives you no right to shoot them.

By that logic a park warden could shoot a man for walking on the grass because he might be trying to kill the squirrels!

Um, no.

If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't shoot them (well I don't have a gun, but if I did I wouldn't), I would just try and phone the police.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's actually pretty emotionally difficult to shoot someone. It would be for me anyway. Maybe it's different for a lot of Americans, but is this just because they're jus so used to having guns and seeing them everyday? And seeing people die regularly? Guns = bad.

Guns in bad peoples hands = bad...

BTW shooting and killing someone, it SUX, pray , I pray you never, ever have to do it. Cause ya kno what, I STILL have nitemares... I saw that guys face just before I shot him.. and it haunts me. But I would do it agian.

Go ahead and try to call the cops, if he is violent, but has no gun, maybe he will just beat you with a baseball bat...

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 11:08 AM

It wasn't much of a part of it. Slavery would have survived almost entirely intact had it not been for Robert E Lee actually gaining a victory and drawing the war out for years.

Ironic really. If he'd lost immediately, the Southern system would have survived, but by winning temporarily, he ensured it's destruction.

And on your story, I think you are a very foolish man. You surprised the burglar with a gun, ensuring a shootout that would be fatal to one side. What if he'd hit you with those 3 shots? Your children would be fatherless and your wife would be a widow. The burglar was probably there just to steal your TV or something, not to kill you. And the very reason he was carrying a gun was more than likely because he knew that a person like you might well have a gun and he'd have to protect himself against your STUPID STUPID "if he's in your house you can kill him" law.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:10 AM

Bonnie, slavery was at the heart of the American Civila war. Not the morality of it, but the fact of the matter was, the south felt the north was imposing on it, and that it was thier right to have slaves. THAT is the impetious of the Civil War. States rights, namely over slavery.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 11:14 AM

The direct cause of it was the divide between the North and South, the secession of the South. The South left the Union, and the North attacked them for it, seeking to annex them back into the Union. Don't try to dress it up as some humanitarian effort, because that's not what it began as.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:21 AM

EH?

I didn't... I never said that....

Why did the South leave the Union? Hmmm? Because the South felt its lifestyle, its prosperiety was doomed by the north, that had had rstriceted the SPREAD OF SLAVERY as the Nation grew. Thus, they felt that thier system was going to collapse, and THAT is why the left.

I am in collage (night school but hey) and am a big history buff, and the Civil War is a great point in American History. The Civil War wouldhave been faught, what 20 years earlier if it had not been for the Missouri Comprimise.

It was not a humanitarian gesture, it was States rights that lead to the war, and the main pint of contention was slavery. Plain and simple.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 11:23 AM

:( I don't know anything about this history stuff.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:27 AM

The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events.

At the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period. Although it was largely gone from the northern states by 1787, it was still enshrined in the new Constitution of the United States, not only at the behest of the Southern ones, but also with the approval of many of the Northern delegates who saw that there was still much money to be made in the slave trade by the Yankee shipping industry. Eventually its existence came to color every aspect of American life

-- litle ways down--

It seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.

But even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North�s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice.

Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, �It is not humanity that influences you� it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement� you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.� There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusatory language of sectionalism

We see this same State�s Rights argument brought forward again in the 1860�s to justify secession as a solution to what amounts to a sectional inferiority complex. The section I refer to, of course, the deep South as whole. Please note that it feels itself to be a �section�, not because of simple geography, but because its society is based upon slavery. So the problem, once again, came down to that �peculiar institution.�

Of course there was agitation in the North for the abolition of the slavery on purely moral grounds. Abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, holding aloft a copy of the Federal Constitution before a crowd in Massachusetts called it �a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.� The abolitionists believed not only that slavery was wrong, but that the Federal government should move to abolish it. Although they were always a small minority they were very vocal about their beliefs, and projected themselves into the minds of southerners as a threat out of all proportion to their actual power and infuence. This threat was greatly magnified in 1859 by John Brown's seizure of the Harper's Ferry arsenal and his call for a general insurrection of the slaves. This caused many of the Southern states to implement plans for more effective militias for internal defense

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:28 AM

While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.

Even in the North only four states permitted free blacks to vote, and in no state could they serve on a jury. Many people wondered what could possibly be done with the huge number of blacks if they were, in fact, freed.

The whole mess went up in smoke in the presidential election year of 1860. The Democratic party split badly. Stephen Douglas became the nominee of the northern wing of the party. A southern faction broke away from the party and nominated Senator John Breckinridge of Kentucky. The remnants of the Whig party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.

Into this confusion the new Republican party injected its nominee, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate Republican. As such he was a compromise candidate, everybody�s second choice. He was convinced that the Constitution forbade the Federal government from taking action against slavery where it already existed, but was determined to keep it from spreading further. South Carolina, in a fit of stubborn pride, unilaterally announced that it would secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected.

To everyone�s amazement Lincoln was victorious. He had gathered a mere 40% of the popular vote, and carried not a single slave state, but the vote had been so fragmented by the abundance of factions that it had been enough.

South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed.

The sitting President, James Buchanan felt himself powerless to act. Federal arsenals and fortifications throughout the South were occupied by southern authorities without a shot being fired. In the four months between Lincoln�s election and his inauguration the South was allowed to strengthen its position undisturbed.

Lincoln�s inaugural address was at once firm and conciliatory. Unwilling to strike the initial blow to compel the southern states back into the Union, he decided to bide his time. When a Federal ship carrying supplies was dispatched to reprovision Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, the secessionist hand was forced. To forestall the resupply of the fort the Rebel batteries ringing it opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on the 12th of April, 1861, forcing its rapid capitulation.

President Lincoln immediately called upon the states to supply 75,000 troops to serve for ninety days against �combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.� Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee promptly seceded.

The war was on in earnest. Ironically, the combination of political events, southern pride, and willfulness succeeded in paving the way to the abolition of slavery; a condition that no combination of legal action on the part of the most virulent abolitionist could possibly have accomplished

http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:29 AM

Sorry, felt a little history lesson was in order.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 11:32 AM

A link would've done.

But the fact that slavery was the point of contention is irrelevant. The point is that the South felt that the Union was not doing things the way that benefitted them, so they left. The North then invaded them in order to force their laws on them.

I still don't see how this is different from the War of Independence situation, in basic principle.

BTW: Did you notice my reply to your story a little bit back? I would have thought you'd have commented.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:40 AM

I missed it...

Basically, what your saying is, that its OKAY for someone to break into your home, that you have NO right defend your home, your property, or even your life.

Why not put a sign on my door that says, "hey come on in and tkae what you want, maybe the cops might catch you but go for it, its A-OK."

No, what's stupid is not me shooting the guy, but rather the GUY for breaking in. You break into someones home, they have a right to defend thier home, period. Be it with a gun, a knife, a nail studded baseball bat... it doesn't matter. You break in, tough cookies.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 11:42 AM

You can scoff all you want, but if you'd have done as I said, you'd both be alive today.

You do not have the right to kill people who are stealing. That is draconian and should be punishable by imprisonment.

And don't put words in my mouth. The situation you described only became a self-defense situation when you forced it to become one by running into the room wielding a pistol. That was very stupid and cost a mother her son.

You ever consider that if you didn't have that stupid law, burglars wouldn't have to carry guns to defend themselves against homicidal maniacs who think that breaking and entering carries a death penalty?

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 11:55 AM

Hmmm...

Okay, lets say I didn't have the gun, and the guy caem in with a non-gun weapon... he had all ready raped a 5 year old little boy,and an 80 year old women... what do you think he would do?

He might have jsut stabbed me and raped my wife and maybe my kids...

See, thats a difference between England, and the USA. We belive it is a man right to defend his hom, with lethal force if nessaccary.

Let me let you in on a little info I didn't include Bonnie, I was in the hallway, it was dark, he was in the living room, but I heard somthing in the side room, and had been looking in there, way from him with the gun in the room, not the hallway, when he shot. He just shot.

I didn't go barging into the room and took him by surprise, I was crouched down looking into another room... the bullets al hit about 4-6 inches over my head/back.

But in the end, I think we can both agree to disagree on this.

I say "if you break into someones home, too bad for you if he kills ya."

You say summing it up here, correct me if I got this wrong "That if someone breaks into your home, hide in a closet, call 911 and let him get what he came for and go."

That about right?

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:09 PM

Partially correct.

I say call 999, take up whatever weapon you have, and stand ready to defend yourself and family, but do not ATTACK the burglar.

The most valuable thing you have is your life, no TV is worth that.

And don't say that, "we in the US believe blah A while you in the UK believe blah B." You can't speak for an entire country any more than I can. Just say what you believe and why.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 12:11 PM

911 is our 999 I guess...

Anyway, If you let people rob you, without taking active steps, you will just keep getting robbed.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:15 PM

So your argument is, "if you don't kill a criminal he will keep coming back"?

Ever hear of the theory of rehabilitation, or is "let God sort them out" your solution to all crime?

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:16 PM

You do not have to make sure he leaves in a bodybag to defend your stuff

Hamma

2002-12-30, 12:18 PM

:ugh:

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:18 PM

Incompetent, I think I agree with Vicchio in that:

Once you introduce guns to a situation like that, chances are, one of you is gonna get killed. I don't think you can sharp-shoot your way out of that kind of situation by hitting someone in the shoulder or leg. You just keep shooting till the other guy falls down.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 12:19 PM

I'm sorry but isn't returning fire defending yourself? He didn't know if a cat was in the house or a swat team. He didn't have time to call the cops because he never had the time to ascertain what threat he was under. The burglar - if thats what he was - would have - and tried - to kill him. His family would have come down stairs eventually, then what would have happened. He WAS defending himself - that poor son of a bitch is dead because he was a lousy shot. He deserved it.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:21 PM

I would call a headshot sharp-shooting

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:22 PM

I never said shooting a man who shot at you isn't self defense.

I said running towards a man with a gun while wielding a gun yourself is more like attacking him than self-defense, and is recklessly stupid.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 12:27 PM

He didnt do that - he didn't even know where the guy was until he was shot at.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:29 PM

And then, the twich reflex that could have caused him to shoot the hostage the guy was dragging behind him kicked in.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 12:29 PM

I didn't go running towards him, I was checking quietly around to see WTF was making that noise....

BTW, the headshot.. I shoot, and have my expert ribbon from the military. I have been shotting since I was a teenager, and am a damn fine shot on the range.

Incompetant, they don't have to come into the house in the first place.

There are three types of people that are gonna break into your home..

Common thives, grab-n-go types

Rapists, looking for a ncie easy target

And the violent murdering types

Granted, on the whole, you verage burglery is jsut that, a common grab-n-go.. but its the chance that is the other types that keep me armed.

Like I said, I pray NO ONE has to kill another human, it really does give you nightmares and haunt you. But on the flip side, if there weren't criminals, I wouldn't need a gun to defend my home now would I?

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:30 PM

He grabbed his gun and ran towards the noise. I would judge that an aggressive action.

He wouldn't have taken his gun if he hadn't have suspected a threat. What did he expect, a bear? I think he was fully prepared to see a burglar there, and may well have shot first had he the chance.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 12:34 PM

Bonnie it seems to me that the criminal has all the rights and protection in your eyes, and a man who is shot at defending his family and home is the criminal. You have a twisted, perverse view of the world. I think that most of the people who posted in this thread saying Vic is wrong live in a constant state of denial. YOu all think that if you stick your head in the sand trouble will never find you and will pass you by. This world is cold and mean, and there are a great mass of people who's goal is to steal, kill, and destroy. I'm sure you all believe it will never happen to you, but the day it does- if you get out alive, you'll rue the day. I'm sure you'll wish you had a way to defend yourself then.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:36 PM

Oh great, a horror story.

I refuse to be scared into behaving irrationally and stupidly by phrases like, "It'll happen to you one day, then you'll be sorry".

I thought we argued with logic around here.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by BonnieDundee
He grabbed his gun and ran towards the noise. I would judge that an aggressive action.

He wouldn't have taken his gun if he hadn't have suspected a threat. What did he expect, a bear? I think he was fully prepared to see a burglar there, and may well have shot first had he the chance.

I didn't run, and my intentions were, if I saw someone, was to catch em, and get em in jail, where they belong. Basically, I thought I would jsut say "FREEZE MOTHER F!@#ER, I HAVE A GUN AND IT IS POINTED AT YOUR HEAD.. MOVE AND DIE." If he made a fast, sudden movement towards me, I would shoot, if he ran out the door.. PROBABLY would have let hima nd called the cops. It was dark, and if I thought he was going for a gun, or pointing one at me, he was gonna die.

There had beena rash of theft in my dads twon, in and round the area he lived. A few had been violent, and I wasn't gonna go poking around the house unarmed, thats stupid.

Bonnie, I didn't want to kill anyone unless they forced it, even then, prior to me pulling that trigger.. I wasn't sure I could. Its a horrid thing to take a life. I much prefer saving lives to taking them (Was a life guard in HS, and I saved a kid that was dead when I pulled him outta the water.. much better feeling)

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:38 PM

It's the shooting first thats the problem, the american view of "hey, that guy looks mildly threatening, i should kill him because my TV is valuable" that is the reason i think there should be gun control laws, just because someone is holding a weapon does not mean they are prepared to use it. If you get shot at when you walk around a corner then by all means, shoot to kill, but if you get the jump on the other guy there is no reason not to aim for a vulnerable part. And of course your going to kill the guy when you practice headshots so much it becomes a reflex, but if it can become reflexive to shoot for one part of the body it could just as easily become a reflex to shoot for another.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 12:41 PM

Fine,

If you think it can't or won't happen to you then thats your right.

"I say call 999, take up whatever weapon you have, and stand ready to defend yourself and family, but do not ATTACK the burglar."

So he did exactly what you would have. But then you say - "He grabbed his gun and ran towards the noise. I would judge that an aggressive action. " Which is it?

He went down into the hall, should he have stayed in bed with his family where the criminal could have shot any of them?

Why does this guy in someone else's home have any rights at all? It's not federal property - it's private.

"I think he was fully prepared to see a burglar there, and may well have shot first had he the chance"

You don't know this at all. You're putting words in his mouth to make a point.

"And then, the twich reflex that could have caused him to shoot the hostage the guy was dragging behind him kicked in"

It wasn't a bank heist - This hostage thing is unfounded.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:42 PM

murders take hostages when the police are chasing them, they also break into peoples houses to hide. He said it himself, his adrenaline was flowing, if he heard a shot he was going to fire at the first thing that moved.

Edit: well maybe not you, but your average dumbass would, because he just bought a gun because his friend told him he needed one, and gun control laws are there to keep guns away from the average dumbass, not people who know what they are doing.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:45 PM

Yes Vicchio, and look how well your plan worked. You killed the guy, and he could well have killed you. Not my idea of a wise thing to do.

If you're American and therefore stuck in a situation where guns are almost certain to be involved, I would suggest that you took the defensive and holed up rather than going after the guy and risking your own death.

This guy had three shots at you before you reacted, you think you did well? I think you were a fool and are lucky to be alive. I just hope you realise it and don't go risking yourself in the same way again.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 12:46 PM

Incompetant.. the sad part.. I was aiming for his upper chest lol...

You don't train for HS unless you are a sniper, and then you don't just pull your gun Clint Eastwood style and start capping fools, you aim for the largest mass, i.e. the chest.

(I need to buy myself a new keyboard, the keys are sticking on this one and making for ugly typos...)

Navaron

2002-12-30, 12:46 PM

"It's the shooting first thats the problem, the american view of "hey, that guy looks mildly threatening, i should kill him because my TV is valuable" that is the reason i think there should be gun control laws, just because someone is holding a weapon does not mean they are prepared to use it. If you get shot at when you walk around a corner then by all means, shoot to kill, but if you get the jump on the other guy there is no reason not to aim for a vulnerable part. And of course your going to kill the guy when you practice headshots so much it becomes a reflex, but if it can become reflexive to shoot for one part of the body it could just as easily become a reflex to shoot for another."

First off, stop with the baseless stereotypes - all americans's are gun toting hillbillies who shoot anything that moves.

" think there should be gun control laws"

There are tons, it is difficult to acquire if you're a law abiding citizen.

If someone is trying to kill you, you are going to try and kill them first. You are not going to dodge bullets and see where you could shoot them so to only halt them but not mortally wound them. If he had of shot the guy in the leg the guy could have died just as easy.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 12:47 PM

He went down into the hall, should he have stayed in bed with his family where the criminal could have shot any of them?

If you go to where he is, he'll feel threatened and feel the need to shoot you. If you stay out of his way, nothing should happen. If there's no one there to be shot, no one will get shot.

Why does this guy in someone else's home have any rights at all? It's not federal property - it's private.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone has the right to live. Especially if all they've done is broken and entered.

It seems to me a lot of you just want to take the law into your own hands; don't you think the police can do that? Maybe if people let the burglar take what he wants and leave, no one would get hurt and the police could catch him. You could even try to get a glimpse of his appearance to help the police, not run out as if you're one of them.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:50 PM

americans are not gun toting hillbillys, a gun toting hillbilly won't shoot if a cricket chrips the wrong way if (s)he is in a tense situation. it was stated earlier that you had to learn to respect the gun, well your average american is to damn lazy and will just leave it loaded in his bedside tables drawer.

Edit: and adrenaline will make you jumpy, its very reason for existence is to make you jumpy

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by BonnieDundee
Yes Vicchio, and look how well your plan worked. You killed the guy, and he could well have killed you. Not my idea of a wise thing to do.

If you're American and therefore stuck in a situation where guns are almost certain to be involved, I would suggest that you took the defensive and holed up rather than going after the guy and risking your own death.

This guy had three shots at you before you reacted, you think you did well? I think you were a fool and are lucky to be alive. I just hope you realise it and don't go risking yourself in the same way again.

Semi-automatic pistols fire REALLY fast. The cops think he saw me first and was hiding around the corner, and when he heard me open the side room door, he jumped out shooting....

TRUST ME, the first time someone takes a shot at you, your are gnn near (if not actually) piss your pants. You WILL freeze up. And I admit, for a spilt secodn I was like WTF IS THAT??? AHHH, then I turned my head, saw him and single hand, unsupported fired back, one shot, cause there was light on his face, not a lot, but enough to see, and when his face flew back.. and that pink spray was in the air.. I knew he was dead

BTW I love this shoot them in the leg... If you have a gun,a nd someone shoots you in the leg, are you just going to drop the gun and say "YOU GOT ME! I SURRENDER!" I think not.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:53 PM

Go out in your backyard and shoot yourself in the leg, then come back in here and see if you can type a reply.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Flashingfish
If you go to where he is, he'll feel threatened and feel the need to shoot you. If you stay out of his way, nothing should happen. If there's no one there to be shot, no one will get shot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone has the right to live. Especially if all they've done is broken and entered.

It seems to me a lot of you just want to take the law into your own hands; don't you think the police can do that? Maybe if people let the burglar take what he wants and leave, no one would get hurt and the police could catch him. You could even try to get a glimpse of his appearance to help the police, not run out as if you're one of them.

That a very naive point of view.. where do you live? I need a new TV. Hang a sign outside your door, non-violent type, jsut take what you want and leave... :rolleyes:

Seriously, the problem lies therein, what if the bad guy isn't just there for a TV? There ARE people like that... what f they are rapists? You just gonna let them rape your wife, or maybe your daughter, and leave?

Oh yeah, They DO have a right to live... but that means being responsible with your life, if you take up a life of crime... you arent being very responsible with your life are you?

Navaron

2002-12-30, 12:55 PM

Bonnie I'm sorry, but all of your statements are blanket and baseless. Your opinions are your own and that is fine (as are mine) but I have the feeling you have absolutely no real world experience. The fact is - you don't know what to do, or what you would or should do.

Fish

"If you go to where he is, he'll feel threatened and feel the need to shoot you. If you stay out of his way, nothing should happen. If there's no one there to be shot, no one will get shot"

You're assuming he wasn't a rapist or that he wasn't planning on coming up stairs where his whole family was. He protected his family by meeting the threat, not letting it come to him.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone has the right to live. Especially if all they've done is broken and entered. "

You're not wrong but out of context. The criminal has less rights than the man defending his home.

"It seems to me a lot of you just want to take the law into your own hands; don't you think the police can do that? Maybe if people let the burglar take what he wants and leave, no one would get hurt and the police could catch him. You could even try to get a glimpse of his appearance to help the police, not run out as if you're one of them."

I don't know, but I'm pretty damn sure his wife was on the phone with the police immediately. So what you're saying is that no one has the right to defend themselves and the only people allowed to use force are the police? This guy was a victim, some one entered his home, threatened their family, and then was almost killed - yep he should have turned around called the police and hid in a closet. I mean he saw the guys face, I'm sure that the attemped murderer was just going to let himself out.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Incompetent
Go out in your backyard and shoot yourself in the leg, then come back in here and see if you can type a reply.

I would, and probbly could, just a little flech wound to the thigh and I am good to go...

But I wont do that for more then just the obvious reasons, I would be damaging government property.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 12:58 PM

Your forgeting about the fact that if you hit the right spot you will never walk again

Navaron

2002-12-30, 12:59 PM

"Go out in your backyard and shoot yourself in the leg, then come back in here and see if you can type a reply."

I probably wouldn't feel like typing, but I sure as a mother would roll around on the floor and shoot the shit out of whoever just shot me in the damn leg.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Bonnie I'm sorry, but all of your statements are blanket and baseless. Your opinions are your own and that is fine (as are mine) but I have the feeling you have absolutely no real world experience. The fact is - you don't know what to do, or what you would or should do.

Wow. So you're basically saying, "You're wrong, but I'm not going to actually REPLY, I'm just going to keep saying that you're wrong until I exasperate you"? Interesting argument style. Fact is, I already told you what I would do, whether you choose to acknowledge that fact is up to you.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:00 PM

"Your forgeting about the fact that if you hit the right spot you will never walk again"

Are you proposing under fire that I aim for that? I think crippling someone is more cruel than killing them.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:01 PM

If you can hit someone face you can hit their knee

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:02 PM

That a very naive point of view.. where do you live? I need a new TV. Hang a sign outside your door, non-violent type, jsut take what you want and leave...

See, this is what I'd call a naive point of view. You think that just because you don't do anything, that person will get away. The Police are there for a reason, to catch them.

You're not wrong but out of context. The criminal has less rights than the man defending his home.

Does that mean you can take the law into your own hands and shoot him?

You're assuming he wasn't a rapist or that he wasn't planning on coming up stairs where his whole family was. He protected his family by meeting the threat, not letting it come to him.

How can you know that he was a rapist? How can you know he was going to come up the stairs? Sure, if he was then there might be some motive to "defending" yourself. But if he's just coming to come in and steal things, there's no reason to kill him at all.

So what you're saying is that no one has the right to defend themselves and the only people allowed to use force are the police?

No, don't put words in my mouth. Again this is the taking the law into your own hands point. Defending yourself is not killing someone.

-edit-

I think crippling someone is more cruel than killing them.

Do you really not appreciate life? Being alive is better than being dead. End of story. If I could just find this website with someone who is crippled beyond belief, I could prove it to you. But he's grateful that he is alive, that he can think, and that he can use his mind to do great things. He's happy he's not dead.

Alive>Dead

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:02 PM

"Wow. So you're basically saying, "You're wrong, but I'm not going to actually REPLY, I'm just going to keep saying that you're wrong until I exasperate you"? Interesting argument style. Fact is, I already told you what I would do, whether you choose to acknowledge that fact is up to you. "

Thats funny, I've used everything from hypothtical situations to your own quotes and you haven't replied yet. So you're just going to play the high and mighty card and pass judgement while conviniently ignoring your own points?

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:06 PM

"How can you know that he was a rapist? How can you know he was going to come up the stairs? Sure, if he was then there might be some motive to "defending" yourself. But if he's just coming to come in and steal things, there's no reason to kill him at all"

I'd rather play it safe than sorry. But if we look at the facts he jumped out and shot at whatever it was coming down the hall. It could have been Vics daughter. I for one think that is motive enough to defend you life with lethal force. No one knows his intentions. I can't say anymore than you can.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:06 PM

How can you know that he was a rapist? How can you know he was going to come up the stairs? Sure, if he was then there might be some motive to "defending" yourself. But if he's just coming to come in and steal things, there's no reason to kill him at all.

That is the problem with criminals, they all look a like, the burgler looks just like the rapist and the murderer. I guess I COULD ask them why they BROKE the law and came into my home, but I think its safer and more prudent to, in those cases, shoot first ask second.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:07 PM

And i thought we had this whole "reasonable doubt" thing.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:09 PM

Thats for lawyers, lawyers don't have the lives of their families hanging in the balance when someone breaks into thier home.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:10 PM

We don't - the legal system does.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:10 PM

That is the problem with criminals, they all look a like, the burgler looks just like the rapist and the murderer. I guess I COULD ask them why they BROKE the law and came into my home, but I think its safer and more prudent to, in those cases, shoot first ask second.

Then again, you could leave him alone. Like I said before, if you're not there to be shot, you can't be shot.

How can it be safe to shoot someone? They get hurt. Which is not good.

If the guy had come up the stairs, and pointed his gun straight at you, then I would understand shooting him. But going looking for trouble, when both of you have a weapon, is going to end up with someone hurt, or in this case, dead.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:12 PM

"If the guy had come up the stairs, and pointed his gun straight at you, then I would understand shooting him. But going looking for trouble, when both of you have a weapon, is going to end up with someone hurt, or in this case, dead"

So he should have stayed in the bedroom with his family and put them all at risk? So it's ok to shoot when the gun is pointed at you, but Vic was actually shot at, and now he's the bad guy. WTF.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:15 PM

I think your missed what i'm saying, if the other guy shoots, kill the bastard. but if you find him, you should aim somewhere painful, yell out something along the lines of "don't move asshole or your dead" and shoot if he does anything threating. But if your average dumbass finds him, he will most likely shoot the bastard as soon as he see's them. If you want a gun I DON' CARE, you have a clue what your doing. Most people are to stupid and lazy to use the gun right, and they should not have guns.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:16 PM

So he should have stayed in the bedroom with his family and put them all at risk? So it's ok to shoot when the gun is pointed at you, but Vic was actually shot at, and now he's the bad guy. WTF.

How is staying out of the way putting them at risk? If he's with them, and if he's prepared to shoot the guy if he comes in, I don't see how they're at risk at all.

What I'm saying is that ok, if you're shot at, shoot back by all means. But you have to think why were you shot at. If you stay away, you don't get shot!

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:17 PM

It boils down to this, plain and simple:

The CRIMINAL, the moment he breaks into a home, puts his life and limb at risk. Why? Because he violated the property of a law abiding citizen. Period.

I love this lineof thought:

Then again, you could leave him alone. Like I said before, if you're not there to be shot, you can't be shot.

If the guy points his gun at you, you are probably a dead man. The point of defending ones self is stop the bad guy from hurting you. I will NOT wait till a gun is pointed at me. If you make a move liek you are gonn try a nd draw a bead on me.. too bd you are dead.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:17 PM

I've seen this alot in this thread average = dumb ass. Stupid people are the minimum.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:24 PM

If the guy points his gun at you, you are probably a dead man. The point of defending ones self is stop the bad guy from hurting you. I will NOT wait till a gun is pointed at me. If you make a move liek you are gonn try a nd draw a bead on me.. too bd you are dead.

But that's only because you went looking for trouble. Can't you see that? He can't point his gun at you if you are not there.

Defending = To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.

It dosen't mean to render the attacker incapable of attacking, just to keep safe. I.E. to stay away.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:24 PM

That is a little too optimistic for me, from what i have seen stupid people are the massive majority. Our of the 30/40 people i went to school with last year (i went to some tiny ass charter school because i am not a big fan of other people) I would not trust a single one of them with a gun.

Edit: then again i wouldn't really give a shit if any of them killed themselves

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:24 PM

I see the problem. We've got quite an age gap. I mean no offense at all - you guys are defending your beliefs vehimently at a young age and that is commendable. However, I'm sure you still live in the comfort of your folks home. You protect your views however idealistic. As you age you may see you pov change.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Wow. So you're basically saying, "You're wrong, but I'm not going to actually REPLY, I'm just going to keep saying that you're wrong until I exasperate you"? Interesting argument style. Fact is, I already told you what I would do, whether you choose to acknowledge that fact is up to you. "

Thats funny, I've used everything from hypothtical situations to your own quotes and you haven't replied yet. So you're just going to play the high and mighty card and pass judgement while conviniently ignoring your own points?

I'm sorry if you're feeling like I'm not paying you enough attention, but these posts are going 3 a minute and I'm trying to keep up by answering the most aggravating first. Perhaps you need to try harder. :D

I repeat, I would take the defensive in such a situation, hole up in my bedroom with an appropriate weapon. However, in the UK I would make some noise (from outside of LOS) in order to disturb the burglar and hopefully make him go away, since I am unlikely to get shot at for it.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:26 PM

fish, the best defense is a strong offense. Attackers always have the advantage. Instead of having someone come to your door - go to them.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I see the problem. We've got quite an age gap. I mean no offense at all - you guys are defending your beliefs vehimently at a young age and that is commendable. However, I'm sure you still live in the comfort of your folks home. You protect your views however idealistic. As you age you may see you pov change.

I love it when people think age = maturity. Ok so I'm being a bit harsh with that comment, but you've been young, and I'm sure you know a lot about life then. Sure, I haven't shot anyone or been shot at, but I have a pretty good idea of what it can be like.

fish, the best defense is a strong offense. Attackers always have the advantage. Instead of having someone come to your door - go to them.

No it's not. That means someone will get hurt no matter what. If you do like what Bonnie says, to stay holed up away from danger, there is a much higher likelihood that no one will get hurt. And that's a good thing wouldn't you agree?

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:29 PM

"I love it when people think age = maturity. Ok so I'm being a bit harsh with that comment, but you've been young, and I'm sure you know a lot about life then"

Good point. I felt ver batim the way you do when I was younger. The point is that age does equal life experience.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:29 PM

You protect your views however idealistic I don't think anyone has ever described me as idealistic, worthless pessemist yes but idealist no

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Flashingfish
But that's only because you went looking for trouble. Can't you see that? He can't point his gun at you if you are not there.

Defending = To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.

It dosen't mean to render the attacker incapable of attacking, just to keep safe. I.E. to stay away.

If I am not there.. Here is the problem, what if he comes for you?
IT may sound easy to hole up,but think about this... you and your wife, holed up in your room, your kids are down the hall.. you have your gun ready.. you keep the lights off so if the BAD guy does come in, he cant see you till its too late...

The door opens, you fire... and your son lies dead in the door way... he just wanted a drink of water... while the bad guy (if there was one)... gets away..

Nah, I won't shoot till I see ya, and I won't wait for you to come to me. The best way to win, is to take the inititive, otherwise you are reacting, and that is a bigger gamble.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"I love it when people think age = maturity. Ok so I'm being a bit harsh with that comment, but you've been young, and I'm sure you know a lot about life then"

Good point. I felt ver batim the way you do when I was younger. The point is that age does equal life experience.

Perhaps, but you can still be thick as two short planks, no matter your age.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:31 PM

cover the stairwell vic

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:33 PM

But life experience only presents itself with age. Old people can have no life experience and be stupid. Young people can be smart, but you can't force life experience its not backwards compatible.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Flashingfish

No it's not. That means someone will get hurt no matter what. If you do like what Bonnie says, to stay holed up away from danger, there is a much higher likelihood that no one will get hurt. And that's a good thing wouldn't you agree?

You are assuming th bad guy is just there for your TV. Its NOt your fualt, as ahomeowner, that the bad guy VOLUNTEERED to get shot, killed, maimed... it was his fault when he entered your residence, he VOLUNTEERED for that.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Good point. I felt ver batim the way you do when I was younger. The point is that age does equal life experience.

Please, don't try to say that just because we're not as old as you our points are irrelevant.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:35 PM

Gun+stairwell=guy who came for tv not dead, but guy who came to kill you getting what he deserved

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
If I am not there.. Here is the problem, what if he comes for you?
IT may sound easy to hole up,but think about this... you and your wife, holed up in your room, your kids are down the hall.. you have your gun ready.. you keep the lights off so if the BAD guy does come in, he cant see you till its too late...

The door opens, you fire... and your son lies dead in the door way... he just wanted a drink of water... while the bad guy (if there was one)... gets away..

Nah, I won't shoot till I see ya, and I won't wait for you to come to me. The best way to win, is to take the inititive, otherwise you are reacting, and that is a bigger gamble.

Then get your children in the room with you. If he was that crazy to run up the stairs straightaway and try to shoot you, then there's a reason for it. But you don't know what he really wanted, and now you will never know.

You are assuming th bad guy is just there for your TV. Its NOt your fualt, as ahomeowner, that the bad guy VOLUNTEERED to get shot, killed, maimed... it was his fault when he entered your residence, he VOLUNTEERED for that.

He's only going to get shot if you decide to shoot him.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
You are assuming th bad guy is just there for your TV. Its NOt your fualt, as ahomeowner, that the bad guy VOLUNTEERED to get shot, killed, maimed... it was his fault when he entered your residence, he VOLUNTEERED for that.

You ever get beyond the idea that "Criminal = evil"? The guy could have a drug habit he needs to support. He could be mentally ill. He may have a hundred other problems that could be no fault of his own. He may well have no other choice than to turn to crime to get himself out of such problems. Just because he's committed a minor crime does not mean he should die for it. You may well find yourself in the same situation one day. A wise man once said, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Good advice.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Incompetent
Gun+stairwell=guy who came for tv not dead, but guy who came to kill you getting what he deserved

I don't have a stairwell anymore...

Then get your children in the room with you. If he was that crazy to run up the stairs straightaway and try to shoot you, then there's a reason for it. But you don't know what he really wanted, and now you will never know.

Its not always practical to "get the kids"

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:39 PM

Then go to them.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:42 PM

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:42 PM

You ever get beyond the idea that "Criminal = evil"? The guy could have a drug habit he needs to support. He could be mentally ill. He may have a hundred other problems that could be no fault of his own. He may well have no other choice than to turn to crime to get himself out of such problems. Just because he's committed a minor crime does not mean he should die for it. You may well find yourself in the same situation one day. A wise man once said, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Good advice.

I am gonna have fun now...

How is a drug problem not his fault? He started using em.. his fault... pity.. ZERO.

Metnally Ill.. okay, granted... but unfortunantly, taking the time and effort to find out what is problems MIGHT be, can get you killed...

Just because he commited a minor crime.......
Yes it does. Absolutely. There is ABSOLUTLY ZERO excuse for breaking into a home, and stealing things that do not beling to you. That sort of rationalizing thought drives me up the FREAKING wall. I work my arse off for what I have, and I don't work my arse off, so that some freeloading low life can steal from me.

And, unless I had a horrid mental illness.. no matter HOW poor I was, I would never, EVER steal. EVER.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I think your problem is that you live in a day in age where no one ever pays the piper. This world has few consequences anymore, so when someone has to face the consequences of risking thier life, you are appaled

I think your problem is that you keep pretending to know me from a forum argument.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
I am gonna have fun now...

How is a drug problem not his fault? He started using em.. his fault... pity.. ZERO.

Now who's naive? There are ways to get a drug problem that are involuntary. And it was only an example, you can accept the point without accepting the specific circumstance.

Metnally Ill.. okay, granted... but unfortunantly, taking the time and effort to find out what is problems MIGHT be, can get you killed...

Who said you had to find out about it? All I'm saying is that the guy is a person who doesn't deserve to be gunned down for a minor crime.

Just because he commited a minor crime.......
Yes it does. Absolutely. There is ABSOLUTLY ZERO excuse for breaking into a home, and stealing things that do not beling to you. That sort of rationalizing thought drives me up the FREAKING wall. I work my arse off for what I have, and I don't work my arse off, so that some freeloading low life can steal from me.

Oh, do go away. Why don't we cut their hands off while we're at it?

And, unless I had a horrid mental illness.. no matter HOW poor I was, I would never, EVER steal. EVER.

Uh-huh. I bet I could come up with some scenarios, usually involving the phrase, "feed your kids" that would make you revoke that one.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:50 PM

First off,

I have zero inclination to know you or meet you. I said I "think". THat means I gathered my opinions from your comments and any other information I had availible to me. THink implies I could be wrong. Based on your posts, I don't see proof I am. But I could be wrong - *I* don't think Im perfect.

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
I am gonna have fun now...

How is a drug problem not his fault? He started using em.. his fault... pity.. ZERO.

Does he not even deserve a chance? At all?! He should just be shot?

Yes it does. Absolutely. There is ABSOLUTLY ZERO excuse for breaking into a home, and stealing things that do not beling to you. That sort of rationalizing thought drives me up the FREAKING wall. I work my arse off for what I have, and I don't work my arse off, so that some freeloading low life can steal from me.

Then again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO excuse for killing someone. And don't give me rights bla blah, killing someone is wrong, end of story.

And, unless I had a horrid mental illness.. no matter HOW poor I was, I would never, EVER steal. EVER.

Um, yes you would if you were addicted to drugs and needed money. I've seen people like that. It's not a nice sight.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:51 PM

No, I would find other ways, family, friends, welfare, soup kitchens, anything but crime.

Actually, cutting off a hand of a 3-4th time repeat offender IMHO wouldn't be a bad thing.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:53 PM

Yes, well maybe that's saying something about your humble opinion.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:53 PM

Does he not even deserve a chance? At all?! He should just be shot?

USre, as long as he stay outta my house and away from my family.Then again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO excuse for killing someone. And don't give me rights bla blah, killing someone is wrong, end of story.

No, there are times the killing of another is justified, if a sad thing to do.

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by BonnieDundee
Yes, well maybe that's saying something about your humble opinion.

Yeah, it says I think people that are criminals, should be punished for thier crimes, nto given a hug and a free pass

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:54 PM

Who said you had to find out about it? All I'm saying is that the guy is a person who doesn't deserve to be gunned down for a minor crime.

Now who's naive? There are ways to get a drug problem that are involuntary. And it was only an example, you can accept the point without accepting the specific circumstance.

You are. No one is responsable for their actions according to your posts. So all these people are scott free to do whatever the hell they want regardless of a little thing called LAW.

Oh, do go away. Why don't we cut their hands off while we're at it?
Works good in Turkey. Most places don't even have locks on their doors and banks don't even close their vaults.

Uh-huh. I bet I could come up with some scenarios, usually involving the phrase, "feed your kids" that would make you revoke that one.

Howabout - Burger King? They are always hiring.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:55 PM

Pah, you post it here as proof of your "rightness".

"I killed this guy, I am obviously right."

I don't think you thought it was sad at all, I think you're still deluding yourself into thinking you did the right thing.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Yeah, it says I think people that are criminals, should be punished for thier crimes, nto given a hug and a free pass

I still can't believe that "cutting the hands off" comment. Good grief...

Navaron

2002-12-30, 01:56 PM

I DON'T THINK YOU'VE BEEN IN THAT SITUATION AND ARE IN ANY PLACE TO JUDGE.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 01:58 PM

that sounds suprisingly contradictory to me

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Now who's naive? There are ways to get a drug problem that are involuntary. And it was only an example, you can accept the point without accepting the specific circumstance.

You are. No one is responsable for their actions according to your posts. So all these people are scott free to do whatever the hell they want regardless of a little thing called LAW.

So why do you guys seem to be entirely opposed to calling the police, and instead want to go in and shoot the guy dead as fast as you can?

Oh, do go away. Why don't we cut their hands off while we're at it?
Works good in Turkey. Most places don't even have locks on their doors and banks don't even close their vaults.

And beer is a penny a pint and rose blossom falls from the sky. Move there if you want to find out the truth.

Uh-huh. I bet I could come up with some scenarios, usually involving the phrase, "feed your kids" that would make you revoke that one.

Howabout - Burger King? They are always hiring.

Yes, because they pay well enough to deal with the scenarios I would come up with. I doubt criminals "volunteer to die" as you put it, because their money problems could be solved with a job at BK. Fact is, you don't know, and you don't care. Callous.

Navaron

2002-12-30, 02:00 PM

"Pah, you post it here as proof of your "rightness".

"I killed this guy, I am obviously right."

I don't think you thought it was sad at all, I think you're still deluding yourself into thinking you did the right thing"

It seems we have an omnipitant poster here.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I DON'T THINK YOU'VE BEEN IN THAT SITUATION AND ARE IN ANY PLACE TO JUDGE.

Save me the trouble - do tell, are you the killer or his lickspittle? I forget.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 02:01 PM

isn't turkey supposed to be the most corrupt country in the world?

MrVicchio

2002-12-30, 02:01 PM

I am outta here, this threads been fun,a nd interestinf, but in the end.. I think it boils down to those who are willing to stand up for themselves, and those that live in wonderland, and when reality hits em in the head, the will see that I WAS right, and Iit was sad all the same time, my killing that man. Hopefully they don't end up in a similar situation, but if so, I hope they do as I did and come out as the one alive.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
It seems we have an omnipitant poster here.

Or one with eyes, a brain, and the capacity to read.

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by MrVicchio
I am outta here, this threads been fun,a nd interestinf, but in the end.. I think it boils down to those who are willing to stand up for themselves, and those that live in wonderland, and when reality hits em in the head, the will see that I WAS right, and Iit was sad all the same time, my killing that man. Hopefully they don't end up in a similar situation, but if so, I hope they do as I did and come out as the one alive.

And I hope they ignore homicidal maniacs such as yourself and don't risk themselves needlessly in a bloodthirsty manner.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 02:03 PM

The wonderland is you deluding yourself into thinking regular people are responsible enough to be trusted with a gun

Navaron

2002-12-30, 02:06 PM

I have to agree with Vic, I'm fed up with these know it all children who know what I think and should do. Hopefully your lives will be as idealic as you dream, and hope the fall isnt too far when your bubble bursts.

Incompetent

2002-12-30, 02:07 PM

Someones a little arrogant today aren't we

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I have to agree with Vic,

Yeah, I kinda noticed that.

I'm fed up with these know it all children who know what I think and should do.

Must be tough being so wrong all the time.

Hopefully your lives will be as idealic as you dream, and hope the fall isnt too far when your bubble bursts.

Don't those two contradict each other?

BonnieDundee

2002-12-30, 02:13 PM

Anyway. Hope you mellow out sometime.

Dundee out.

Hamma

2002-12-30, 02:14 PM

Ok, time to start a :love: thread

Flashingfish

2002-12-30, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I have to agree with Vic, I'm fed up with these know it all children who know what I think and should do. Hopefully your lives will be as idealic as you dream, and hope the fall isnt too far when your bubble bursts.

Do you have to insult us? Just because we're young, dosen't mean we're not intelligent.

Navaron, have you had any experience in shooting people or being shot? You haven't said anything about it yet if you have, so please enlighten me about your "experience".

and those that live in wonderland, and when reality hits em in the head, the will see that I WAS right, and Iit was sad all the same time, my killing that man.

What is this about living in wonderland? Stop trying to say you are always right and that we are wrong and that we are in some fantasy.

Hopefully they don't end up in a similar situation, but if so, I hope they do as I did and come out as the one alive.

Is that all it comes down to? The one who came out alive? You're just contradicting everything that's been said. It's wrong to kill anyone.