RE: Defended my home (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


slvemike4u -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:05:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gehennasfury

In that case Mike, I stand corrected. However, my points still stand in the debate of the pros and cons of firearm control.
All cool...but it would help if those on your side would try to keep in mind that most on my side are discussing as you yourself put it"firearm control".....not necessarily banning.That is an NRA tactic....move the conversation immediately to banning and the discussion stops and yelling begins....most rational people realise there will ne no banning.....common sense laws are another matter,of course first one would need the idiots(on both sides) to shut up.




chiaThePet -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:08:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

26 pages later. 26. Glad the OP was smart enough to put this in politics.
why should it be political, I still don't know.


Ain't it the truth.

Somebody shoot me.

Oh wait...........

chia* (the pet)




slvemike4u -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:12:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Whats your point here loki...how about finding the post I was reacting to...you know the one where you did suggest that the answer to school shootings was more guns in the schools....not less.
I need no help from you in proving my point where you are concerned.....why you insist on making this easier for me is beyond my imagination.


But see, you keep proving MY point. You see the post you are referring to (but won't quote because you know you're mistaken) is post number  403. In that post, I said:

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Yeah, in the incorrect quarters it speaks to the availability of guns. But thanks for proving my point on the need for education.

You see, someone who will shoot up a school will do other things, as well. The columbine kids brought homemade bombs too, ones that can be made easily with innocent, store-bought items.


So let's talk about availability in the school scenario for a moment. The law-abiding ones who obey the sign on the school door are nothing but targets to someone willing to break the law.

Now, were they able to have their own guns for defense, perhaps they could stop the shooter.


But as I said first, it *does* speak more about parenting because for a kid to reach the point where a school shooting is a good idea, the ball was dropped long before he gets a hold of the gun.


To help you out, I marked what you focused on in italics. But I marked what you blatantly overlooked in bold. You can't pick and choose points in a single post that you think make your point. You have to read the whole thing. I know reading isn't your strong suit, but come on. Give it a try. You'll get it eventually.

So explain again why I should have ignored your characterization of those who obey the law as easy targets(this from a stalwart defender of the LEGAL right to bear arms)or the further comment that "Now ,were they able to have their own guns for defense,they could stop the shooter"
Not a call for more guns in schools heh?
I told you loki....helping me is not a requirement.Again though I appreciate your efforts here.




gehennasfury -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:13:43 AM)

Unfortunately Mike, that is not just a tactic from the NRA. The anti-gunners also use it as well. They use the word "control" in place of "banning". They take a certain clas of firearms and villianize them. They either don't want to recognize the fact that a gun is an inanimate object, or they ignore it. A gun does not kill people, just as a car doesn't. Cars and guns have no thought processes. They can't suddenly decide to shoot Mary or Robert or run them over. It's person handling the gun who willfully fires at a person without justification, or it's a person with NO firearms training. Same with a car. We teach people to drive and then give them drivers liscenses. It's mandatory in all fifty states to take a drivers education course befoe getting a liscense. Why can't we make it mandatory to take a firearms safety course before owning a firearm?




Lucienne -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:14:25 AM)

FR

26 pages in.. here's what I think happened. Orion is awakened at 3:45 am by sounds in the basement. He grabs his gun and goes to investigate. It's dark. He can definitely hear something moving in the storage room. His adrenaline is rushing. He's trying to be as quiet as possible, but it feels like his heartbeat is connected to an amplifier and surely the entire house can hear it. He's imagining the worst. He enters the storage room and hears noise coming from the closet. Just about ready to freak... he realizes it is a raccoon.

He shoots the raccoon.

Family members awake. He explains that everything is ok, everybody go back to sleep. But he can't sleep, because he's still dealing with an adrenaline surge. So he lays in bed, and imagines what would've happened if the noise had been from a burglar rather than a raccoon. He plays out the scenario in his head... what would be the perfect way to handle the situation? At some point, he thinks "I dare one of those gun-control freaks to criticize that scenario." Still having trouble sleeping, he turns to the boards and types up his story. He puts it in politics because he wants it to be challenged. He says he's not cooperating with the press because he's a private person. But he just posted a detailed scenario on a public message board. At some point, it gets through his head, but not the heads of many others, that the odds of "Suburban man shoots home invader" not being covered by the press are about as bad as "Beautiful Blonde Cheerleader kidnapped from local Wal-Mart parking lot" being ignored by the local media. So he retreats. States he considered calling it a hoax because he's worried about people of "malice" locating his home. (A worry that should have been apparent at first blush). Greeted with skepticism by a minority of posters, he says "It's a hoax."

Excited by the vengeance porn, people continue to argue and imagine fantasies of them protecting their families and homes.




Loki45 -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:16:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
So explain again why I should have ignored your characterization of those who obey the law as easy targets(this from a stalwart defender of the LEGAL right to bear arms)or the further comment that "Now ,were they able to have their own guns for defense,they could stop the shooter"
Not a call for more guns in schools heh?
I told you loki....helping me is not a requirement.Again though I appreciate your efforts here.


I don't need to explain anything. Your over-simplification of what I said speaks for itself. Add to that the fact that you capped off your over-simplified take on my comment with an insult to the intelligence of anyone who thinks that a sign on a campus that says "gun free zone" is a load of shit and you have the beginning of the fracas between us.

Here's a tip: If you don't want your intelligence and parenting skills mocked, insulted and made fun of, don't insult others. When you insult others, you automatically lose the debate. Since you lost the debate with that post, I saw no need to stay above-board.

As a secondary tip: If you do choose to insult people, make sure the post in which you insult them isn't filled with typos misspellings. It just looks bad.




slvemike4u -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:24:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gehennasfury

Unfortunately Mike, that is not just a tactic from the NRA. The anti-gunners also use it as well. They use the word "control" in place of "banning". They take a certain clas of firearms and villianize them. They either don't want to recognize the fact that a gun is an inanimate object, or they ignore it. A gun does not kill people, just as a car doesn't. Cars and guns have no thought processes. They can't suddenly decide to shoot Mary or Robert or run them over. It's person handling the gun who willfully fires at a person without justification, or it's a person with NO firearms training. Same with a car. We teach people to drive and then give them drivers liscenses. It's mandatory in all fifty states to take a drivers education course befoe getting a liscense. Why can't we make it mandatory to take a firearms safety course before owning a firearm?
All true...and we also regulate what sort of car is available for use on public streets...for instance we don't let Mary or Robert drive down Main Street in a Formula 1 race car.




slvemike4u -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:26:31 AM)

When I want tips from you loki ...I'll let you know.
Don't hold your breath.....better yet,go right ahead and hold it.




Loki45 -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:29:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
When I want tips from you loki ...I'll let you know.
Don't hold your breath.....better yet,go right ahead and hold it.


Still butthurt I see.  [:D]

I figured you wouldn't have an intelligent reply when confronted with the evidence that you did, in fact, start this immature lil' back-and-forth.




slvemike4u -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:31:51 AM)

[:D] are you holding it?




Loki45 -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 7:49:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
[:D] are you holding it?


Nope, but I can see you're still crying.




slvemike4u -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 8:23:46 AM)

Right loki,....you win.Whatever was I thinking trading barbs with one as quick witted and well informed as you [8|]




LadyPact -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 9:51:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Laymedown60

This is from a home security site...lots of sense. Not one bit of advice says get a gun and go after the burglar



How many profiles do you have going there, Butch?  Any particular reason for switching between the two during the course of the debate?

Anyway, I appreciate the fact that you spent the time to research and post this particular interview.  However, I don't feel it applies in regard to the original.  Nowhere in this is there any description of other family members scattered about other parts of the house.  It only mentions a spouse who would be in the same room as you.  It gives no mention of other members who are less capable of defending themselves if they are the ones being found first, such as elderly or children.

Over and over in this thread, you have said that your intentions for your comments have been about planning for the best possible outcome of additional situations.  From what I've read in this thread, it seems to Me that Orion's 'plan' worked just fine.  The family is safe.  The intruder was injured, not killed, and isn't breaking in to someone else's house next week because he's got three bullet holes in him.

Seems pretty successful to Me.




thishereboi -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 10:04:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
   The intruder was injured, not killed, and isn't breaking in to someone else's house next week because he's got three bullet holes in him.

Seems pretty successful to Me.



Yea, maybe he even learned something, like not to break into houses. In fact it might have saved his life. Next time he might not have been so lucky.

note: this is not to say I actually believe the kid really did learn, but one can always hope.




SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 10:26:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Perhaps, but not in this case. The man Orion shot was carrying not only a knife, but a fully loaded large-caliber handgun. The matter of whether he intended to kill may be open to debate, but it's not really relevant because the question of whether he was prepared to kill is clearly settled - he was. Just his bad luck that Orion got him first.

Edited to add: Just for the sake of clarity, I should point out that while Orion initially identified the kid's gun as a .25, he subsequently corrected that. The police told him later that day that it was a .380 with a round in the chamber.

I wasn't really concerned with one specific scenario but the overarching system which allows one persons word to be seen as fact. Sure in this case he is honest in another hypothetical case the intruder didn't have a gun at all because the home owner placed the gun in his hand to justify the initial response.

The system is designed so that people intruding don't need to be threatening to be shot because there are these creative ways around inconvenient facts.




thishereboi -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 10:30:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

The system is designed so that people intruding don't need to be threatening to be shot because there are these creative ways around inconvenient facts.



Well if that's the case, maybe the people intruding should rethink their career choice.




SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 10:39:07 AM)

I doubt it is a career choice for some people but desperation.

If that is how you feel why don't we dispose of the entire court system because home owners are obviously one class of people and petty thieves another. Who needs justice by jury for those thieves right? This idea that every home owner is a responsible reasonable person just like yourself is a fallacy. People who are borderline psychopaths exist in all walks of life, their actions may not become apparent though until placed in a certain situation where the response is going to go far beyond what you consider reasonable.

You are placing faith in people based on their home ownership credentials?




rulemylife -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 10:42:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

FR

26 pages in.. here's what I think happened. Orion is awakened at 3:45 am by sounds in the basement. He grabs his gun and goes to investigate. It's dark. He can definitely hear something moving in the storage room. His adrenaline is rushing. He's trying to be as quiet as possible, but it feels like his heartbeat is connected to an amplifier and surely the entire house can hear it. He's imagining the worst. He enters the storage room and hears noise coming from the closet. Just about ready to freak... he realizes it is a raccoon.

He shoots the raccoon.

Family members awake. He explains that everything is ok, everybody go back to sleep. But he can't sleep, because he's still dealing with an adrenaline surge. So he lays in bed, and imagines what would've happened if the noise had been from a burglar rather than a raccoon. He plays out the scenario in his head... what would be the perfect way to handle the situation? At some point, he thinks "I dare one of those gun-control freaks to criticize that scenario." Still having trouble sleeping, he turns to the boards and types up his story. He puts it in politics because he wants it to be challenged. He says he's not cooperating with the press because he's a private person. But he just posted a detailed scenario on a public message board. At some point, it gets through his head, but not the heads of many others, that the odds of "Suburban man shoots home invader" not being covered by the press are about as bad as "Beautiful Blonde Cheerleader kidnapped from local Wal-Mart parking lot" being ignored by the local media. So he retreats. States he considered calling it a hoax because he's worried about people of "malice" locating his home. (A worry that should have been apparent at first blush). Greeted with skepticism by a minority of posters, he says "It's a hoax."

Excited by the vengeance porn, people continue to argue and imagine fantasies of them protecting their families and homes.




I've already alerted PETA and they are investigating.




Lockit -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 10:54:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

I doubt it is a career choice for some people but desperation.

If that is how you feel why don't we dispose of the entire court system because home owners are obviously one class of people and petty thieves another. Who needs justice by jury for those thieves right? This idea that every home owner is a responsible reasonable person just like yourself is a fallacy. People who are borderline psychopaths exist in all walks of life, their actions may not become apparent though until placed in a certain situation where the response is going to go far beyond what you consider reasonable.

You are placing faith in people based on their home ownership credentials?



I'm not a doctor or a lawman... but believe me... I will tend to believe the person who lives in the house over the one entering without permission, with a criminal history already and who entered with weapons. lol It ain't rocket science to think that he might be a bit of a liar or problematic. I am not saying that a person who works and lives in a home they pay for is not crazy... but damn... I think I will weigh things out and go from there. I have known a lot of homeless people... people who served this country as this country dictated to them and people who are as honest as they come... I would listen to them before a whole lot of home owner's. But then... I do know more honest people than I do robber types. With or without homes.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Defended my home (12/9/2009 11:30:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Perhaps, but not in this case. The man Orion shot was carrying not only a knife, but a fully loaded large-caliber handgun. The matter of whether he intended to kill may be open to debate, but it's not really relevant because the question of whether he was prepared to kill is clearly settled - he was. Just his bad luck that Orion got him first.

Edited to add: Just for the sake of clarity, I should point out that while Orion initially identified the kid's gun as a .25, he subsequently corrected that. The police told him later that day that it was a .380 with a round in the chamber.

I wasn't really concerned with one specific scenario but the overarching system which allows one persons word to be seen as fact. Sure in this case he is honest in another hypothetical case the intruder didn't have a gun at all because the home owner placed the gun in his hand to justify the initial response.

The system is designed so that people intruding don't need to be threatening to be shot because there are these creative ways around inconvenient facts.



I'd say the fact they're breaking into other people's houses in the middle of the night is threatening in and of itself. If I wake up at 3 AM and find some total stranger sneaking about my home, I'm going to feel considerably threatened. As far as I'm concerned, that's sufficient justification to shoot them right then and there.




Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875