RE: Who else carries?

RE: Who else carries? (Full Version)

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

Message

igor2003 -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 8:22:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad I got shot at close range. The shooters were very young kids. They didn't know the rifle was loaded. They had no idea of the danger and did not intend to shoot me. They were simply irresponsible. They found it in a house they broke into. Breaking in was illegal. They were very young, and thought of it as simple mischief. If the rifle had been secured, the accident would not have happened. If the owner had been in the house, he would have had control over his rifle. He wasn't in the house. Therefore, he did not have control over his rifle. And he can only need his rifle when he and his rifle are in the same house. When he is away from his rifle, he should secure it. When he returns to his rifle, he can unsecure it again so it is ready for use. Okay, thanks for the clarification. You say the kids got the gun from a house they broke into. That implies to me that the house was locked. The gun was inside that "locked" house, correct? Not outside leaning against the wall or anything like that? If it was inside a locked house then it was secured by the owner before he left...just like you suggest that he should do. So how many layers of security do you want or expect before it is no longer the gun owners fault that it gets stolen and used incorrectly? Trigger locks? Chains? Vaults? Armed guards? I suppose that if the kids broke into the homeowners locked shed and stole an axe, then hit you with it, that would again be the homeowners fault? How many layers of security do you have on your own home to keep burglars out? Probably just locked doors. No bars on the windows or anything like that? So with just locked doors for security on your own home it would be YOUR fault if someone broke in and stole your TV, stereo, and computer equipment. Or maybe they break in to your locked garage, steal your car, then have a hit and run accident where someone dies. Is that your fault for not securing your car better? After having been shot I can see why your opinion is what it is, but I don't agree with your assessment as to the gun owner being at fault. If you want to place blame then put the blame where it belongs. On the kids, and on the kids' parents for not teaching them to not steal. Instead, you blame the gun owner, even though he had a locked house, and you make excuses for the kids by saying they were just up to mischief, and "they didn't know the gun was loaded", and "they didn't intend to shoot me". Call the kids what they are...CRIMINALS...and put the blame where it belongs.

imperatrixx -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 8:24:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joybaby good luck with that. My dogs will let me know you're trying to get in, no matter how quiet you think you are. My gun is already loaded & ready, so all i have to do is wait for you to appear in the doorway-you won't hear anything. A possible alternative is to kick in the door, of course, but in that confusion there will still be barking dogs and your uncertainty as to exactly where I am at that moment. I'm not commenting on the probability of success, just that if, theoretically, you knew the homeowner would shoot to kill, if you did plan to rob that house you would have to neutralize the threat before securing the loot.

tj444 -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 8:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Too bad Aswad only dug all that out after the fact. yeah, that makes him making excuses for them even worse if those kids had been living in the US they would have been in jail with multiple charges, funny, some other justice systems wouldnt be making any excuses for them..

imperatrixx -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 8:37:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Too bad Aswad only dug all that out after the fact. yeah, that makes him making excuses for them even worse if those kids had been living in the US they would have been in jail with multiple charges, funny, some other justice systems wouldnt be making any excuses for them.. Yeah but in situations like these I give a bit of weight to the opinion of the victim rather than focusing on the punishments available.

Edwynn -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 8:55:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus The law here says that you cannot use deadly force to protect private property. That means if someone is stealing your vehicle from your driveway you cannot open fire on them. But not in Texas: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1 Not only your own driveway, but any driveway the gun has the range for. How nice. But in any case Georgia law allows gun possession (concealed weapon law) in bars, taverns, the public transportation system, public parks ... anywhere in public, actually. Boy, I feel so much safer now, how 'bout you? You been into bars or on public trans lately? Yeah buddy. quote: I have already been robbed once. OMG! Robbed once! (Termy, please quit laughing here, I have to get through this) At least 8 times here, and the time I had to come out of the shower, hair dripping on the floor, towel barely wrapped, to say HEY! to an intruder that easily out-weighed me by at least 40 pounds (not hard to do in my case), still did not incite me to gun ownership. Perhaps the look in my eye that said "I will put you in a wheelchair for life in less than 2 seconds" might have had something to do with it, I don't know. But as I say, I would never disallow others taking whatever means they feel necessary, only arguing here for better education on the matter and better regulation for those incapable of such education.

tj444 -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 9:00:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Too bad Aswad only dug all that out after the fact. yeah, that makes him making excuses for them even worse if those kids had been living in the US they would have been in jail with multiple charges, funny, some other justice systems wouldnt be making any excuses for them.. Yeah but in situations like these I give a bit of weight to the opinion of the victim rather than focusing on the punishments available. I got the impression there was no punishment, all i was saying is that i am not the only one that doesnt make excuses for what they did.. imo, they are lucky they dont live in the US.. they had been in trouble before, why do they keep getting into more trouble? Where are their parents and what kind of direction/guidance are they giving these kids? I dont make excuses for the parents either..

Edwynn -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 9:44:53 AM)
How many more excuses do you have for lack of anything resembling coherent argument?

StrangerThan -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 10:02:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn How many more excuses do you have for lack of anything resembling coherent argument? He's got a point. A good bit of the idiocy surrounding weapons is self-inflicted, both by those who own them and those who don't. I could care less what your personal take on owning firearms is, but if you have children I consider it a duty to teach them about them. Teach as in, how to use, when to use, how to carry, how to check, all the how's. If you don't and your child dies of a self-inflicted wound, or kills someone else accidentally, the fault is as much yours as anyone's. Kids grow up seeing them in movies, and on tv. Whether you own them or not, until they get older, guns will have a mystique about them. It's no different than any of the ills that have plagued parents forever, cigarettes, drinking.. whatever. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you say. Sometimes they just have to learn the lesson on their own. This is not a lesson you want them learning on their own. Even if they never touch a gun, they'll know if someone else is handling it improperly, know enough to not just stand there and be shot. Obviously there is a greater need for education among parents who own them. Even so, picture your kid on a camp out where someone has a gun. Do you want them to be the stupid one? I don't. I don't want that worry or guilt on my head.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 10:02:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn But in any case Georgia law allows gun possession (concealed weapon law) in bars, taverns, the public transportation system, public parks ... anywhere in public, actually. Thank goodness! quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Boy, I feel so much safer now, how 'bout you? You been into bars or on public trans lately? I feel safer. I am safer. Firm

Edwynn -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 10:31:07 AM)
Knowing that some people who struggle to balance a checkbook, some smaller percentage of whom might be investing their efforts in scouring the public for 'opportunities' they can't find their way to otherwise, some guy falling down drunk, regardless how smart he might be otherwise ... packing ... In the pub and on the train and in the park full of kids. That makes you feel safer. I think that the "agree to disagree" thing would come into play here.

lovmuffin -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 11:53:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus I keep a firearm handy at home. It's fully loaded with a round in the chamber at all times. I keep it on the nightstand while I sleep. My apartment was broken into last year but I have since moved to a much better location. I wasn't quite as vigilant about it until the break in but now I keep it close by. Up until lately I have only carried my firearm outside of my house in my car leaving it locked there when I am out and about. News stories like this have made me reconsider that and actually this afternoon I was planning to go out and shop for a smaller firearm that I can use with an IWB holster for concealment. My 9mm is a little hard to conceal and I'm not really interested in all the flack it would attract. I just want to be able to protect myself. No, what you want to do is feel like a bad ass. I think I've told this story before on here, but it's worth repeating. We were out on motorcycles bar hopping and one idiot got too drunk and dropped his on a curve and cracked a few ribs. The cop that that showed up was being a little aggressive because he was surrounded by 12 bikers. But they acted liked little sheep until we were at the hospital waiting room and then all the talk came out about how the cop wouldn't have been talking that way if he knew how many of them were carrying. They didn't have the balls to say anything back to the cop but they still took pride in the guns they carried, I guess to compensate for their tiny little packages. What a load of crap. First of all your little story lacks some information. Was the guy who was hurt packin ? Was an ambulance called to the scene ? Being surrounded by 12 bikers, why didn't he call for back up ? The main question is what exactly did the cop do that was aggressive ? I wonder if you're nitpickin at the conversation in the waiting room to imply the bikers were a bunch of pussies for not standing up to or being more aggressive by saying something back to the cop ? Maybe it was just smart ass remarks and idol conversation bull shit ? I don't have the balls to say anything back to cops either, armed or otherwise unless I'm disputing something that has to do with me (respectfully of course) or I say to him "you do the same" after I sign the ticket and he tells me to have a nice day. Any one who is sober with even a tiny pea brain of common sense is not going escalate a situation by saying something back to a cop who is acting aggressively, whatever that is.

joybaby -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 12:30:34 PM)
it seems as though you have no problem being around and riding with people who not only drink and drive/ride, but carry guns while doing so....and yet, we're the ones who shouldn't be allowed to keep guns in our homes or concealed carry? If you knew some truly responsible gun owners, you might just change your opinion a tiny bit.

Aynne88 -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 6:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster Do you really not make any distinction between a killer/rapist and someone sneaking in to steal your i pod and kick your dog? You would really kill someone to protect a laptop or a phone? The law here says that you cannot use deadly force to protect private property. That means if someone is stealing your vehicle from your driveway you cannot open fire on them. Fair enough. Once they forcibly enter your home that rule goes out the window. I have no duty to retreat and the use of deadly force is now warranted. If you break into my home why you are there is irrelevant to me. I don't have time to interview you and analyze your motives nor do I feel compelled to frisk you for weapons before I open fire. Rest assured, I will open fire. The idiocy of your logic (and that of some of the other mental midgets in this thread) is mind boggling. You'll ask "You would really kill someone to protect a laptop or a phone?" yet you won't ask the burglar "Is it really worth risking your life to get that laptop or cell phone?". Astounding. All of the onus is upon the homeowner. None on the criminal. They are the ones who created the situation but they are not held accountable. The only accountability is in the manner I choose to respond. Amazing. Truly amazing. Lastly, to answer your question - yes. I absolutely would kill someone to protect the property in my home. I'm an honest man. I am a law abiding citizen. I work hard every day and the things I own have meaning to me or I would not own them. I have already been robbed once. I am tired of these predators who think that they can just kick down someone's door and take whatever they wish. If someone breaks in my home and I am certain they are unarmed and I am certain they intend me no harm and I am certain they are only there to steal my television I am still going to do everything in my power to see that they leave the premises in a body bag. If you don't like that then don't break into my home. Coddle the criminals all you wish. Just don't count me in,. Bravo. So well said!!

rulemylife -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 8:29:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn How many more excuses do you have for lack of anything resembling coherent argument? He's got a point. A good bit of the idiocy surrounding weapons is self-inflicted, both by those who own them and those who don't. I could care less what your personal take on owning firearms is, but if you have children I consider it a duty to teach them about them. Teach as in, how to use, when to use, how to carry, how to check, all the how's. If you don't and your child dies of a self-inflicted wound, or kills someone else accidentally, the fault is as much yours as anyone's. Kids grow up seeing them in movies, and on tv. Whether you own them or not, until they get older, guns will have a mystique about them. It's no different than any of the ills that have plagued parents forever, cigarettes, drinking.. whatever. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you say. Sometimes they just have to learn the lesson on their own. This is not a lesson you want them learning on their own. Even if they never touch a gun, they'll know if someone else is handling it improperly, know enough to not just stand there and be shot. Obviously there is a greater need for education among parents who own them. Even so, picture your kid on a camp out where someone has a gun. Do you want them to be the stupid one? I don't. I don't want that worry or guilt on my head. Definitely, and let's teach them to smoke and drink properly. We don't them to be the stupid ones.

Aswad -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 9:45:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 yeah sure, they were just kids.. boys will be boys... uh huh.. Hanlon's Razor: Do not ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. Health, al-Aswad.

Termyn8or -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 9:52:22 PM)
If they were over eight years old, it may not have been malice but it was damn close. If I was their Parent I would have beaten them within an inch of their fives, and let you watch. I used to say that spare the rod spoil the child did not necessarily mean to beat them with it, but to use it to teach, like a teacher in a school would use a pointer to a blackboard. But I have again changed my opinion, based on these years of life. I would have made those punks REALLY HURT. And BAD. I would stop short of breaking bones, but every fucking part of their body would be in pain, and I would not allow any painkillers whatsoever. That is how lessons are learned. T^T

Aswad -> RE: Who else carries? (8/20/2011 10:20:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joybaby good luck with that. My dogs will let me know you're trying to get in, no matter how quiet you think you are. My gun is already loaded & ready, so all i have to do is wait for you to appear in the doorway-you won't hear anything. A possible alternative is to kick in the door, of course, but in that confusion there will still be barking dogs and your uncertainty as to exactly where I am at that moment. Unless you shoot every cop that rings your doorbell, this is easy to bypass. Fortunately, there are so many neighbours to choose from that an intelligent or professional burglar is still an absolute rarity. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Who else carries? (8/21/2011 12:34:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 So how many layers of security do you want or expect before it is no longer the gun owners fault that it gets stolen and used incorrectly? Nobody said it was the gun owner's fault. Incidentally, a window isn't exactly a layer of security. quote: I suppose that if the kids broke into the homeowners locked shed and stole an axe, then hit you with it, that would again be the homeowners fault? Compare the size of the kill zone. The axe can't readily accomplish an accident at 400 meters. It's the only issue in gun control, as well, since anything can be a weapon up close, or a source of an accident up close. Guns have the distinction of being the only conventional weapon (aside from a bow or crossbow) that can facilitate both accidents and intentional killing at significant range. I'm pro-carry, but like my views on cars, my view on guns is that they're optional and a unique hazard, which legitimizes imposing requirements that ameliorate the associated risk. quote: How many layers of security do you have on your own home to keep burglars out? Rent-a-cop. Motion detection. Offsite camera feed. Window and door sensors. Hardened windows. Also, stealing is hard when you're blind, on fire, and have me closing with a steel hanbo. But, yeah, I will admit to being somewhat lax about security these days. quote: Or maybe they break in to your locked garage, steal your car, then have a hit and run accident where someone dies. Attempting to steal any car of mine would be inadvisable. quote: Is that your fault for not securing your car better? Again, nobody is concerned with blame, or claiming you're at fault. This is a statistics thing. On a population scale, the number of accidents is staggering. Taking steps to remedy that situation is done by the individual, responsible citizens who care about their role in these statistics. If I go bareback a random stranger, it's almost no risk at all to me. But on a population scale, it's citizens not using condoms that is the root cause of the sustained existence of STDs. Whether or not I am comfortable with the risk, I use a condom as a matter of being a good citizen, shouldering my part of the responsibility for the public health. It's a small sacrifice, on par with taking the time to secure a firearm when leaving it unattended. quote: After having been shot I can see why your opinion is what it is, but I don't agree with your assessment as to the gun owner being at fault. Just repeating it one final time for clarity: the gun owner was not at fault here. A woman walking down a dark alley alone in a bad part of town is not to blame for being raped; the blame rests squarely with the attacker. But both could take some steps to reduce the likelihood of a problem arising. This is not an obligation of theirs. But there is such a thing as going above and beyond the call of duty. Incidentally, my opinion is what it is from a simple evaluation in line with my general thinking, and the accident played no other role than to alert me to something I had not considered. Knives are more scary on a personal level, as it's harder to defend against one unarmed, but firearms add range to the equation. And that range is added to accidents, as well. quote: If you want to place blame then put the blame where it belongs. On the kids, and on the kids' parents for not teaching them to not steal. Obviously. We're in perfect agreement on this point. quote: Instead, you blame the gun owner, even though he had a locked house, and you make excuses for the kids by saying they were just up to mischief, and "they didn't know the gun was loaded", and "they didn't intend to shoot me". Excuses are irrelevant. I deal with cause and effect. I'm saying it's understandable how it happened, and that it does not require malice. I'm pointing out that it would not have happened if there weren't a round in the chamber, or if the rifle had been stored securely. Also, it would not have happened if the kids weren't who they were, or their parents handled things differently, or if I didn't stick around, or any of a number of other contributory factors. Incidentally, the law up here dictates the rifle goes in a locked rifle cabinet, seperate from its ammunition, and the failure to pay attention to that is a felony crime, making the gun owner a criminal. The kids, on the other hand, are below the age of criminal culpability, making them non-criminals in the eyes of the law. It's pretty pointless to argue about what to call the parties. If I walk on by while someone is beating you up, I'm not to blame for your injuries. But I could intervene, or at least call 911, and it would help you significantly. Don't be so eager to go with the lowest common denominator. What does it cost you to make the extra effort? Health, al-Aswad.

StrangerThan -> RE: Who else carries? (8/21/2011 1:10:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Definitely, and let's teach them to smoke and drink properly. We don't them to be the stupid ones. I'll remember that. If I ever want them to learn how to drink and drive, you can bring your buddies down, put on your bad-ass motorcycle clothes and show them how to crack a few ribs. When you get done, I'll tell them, liberal lesson 101 - zero responsibility and everything is someone else's fault.

Aswad -> RE: Who else carries? (8/21/2011 1:14:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or If they were over eight years old, it may not have been malice but it was damn close. If I was their Parent I would have beaten them within an inch of their fives, and let you watch. Which would have prompted me to intervene. If I wanted them beaten, I would have done it myself. It isn't the degree of punishment that makes a child into a responsible adult. Your failure to understand what does teach responsibility and prudence is something that the child should not suffer for. The most responsible and prudent adults I know have never been beaten by their parents. The ones who have been beaten the most, have become the least responsible and prudent ones as adults. I've done my share of bloopers growing up. Never landed me a thrashing. But they always made sure I had learned the lesson. And they were proactive in teaching me about responsibility, about choices and consequences, about dangers, about keeping my wits and thinking things through. Most importantly, they showed me, by example, what it meant to be responsible and prudent. And they showed me that it would always be in my best interests to seek them out when I made a mistake or did something wrong. Hell, my parents let my sister have her older boyfriend sleep over while she was barely legal and they were out for the weekend. Both because they weren't blind and stupid (if people intend to do it, they do it, and the back seat of a car isn't the best place for it), and because they knew she was responsible enough to decide what came of it and to stand by that decision. She waited, incidentally. Most I've ever had was a spanking, and I didn't complain about it or resent it. Beating people up is the lazy way out. It doesn't work well for the justice system (compare our criminal statistics, relapse rates and expenditures to the US; we do better on each and every point) and it doesn't work well for training animals (my experience includes difficult cases, with no problem; as well as a breed genetically predisposed to panic attacks severe enough that they often attack their owners, again with no problem and by the time there were any symptoms, the dog was twice as old as the longest time the vet had seen one last before having to be put down). Young children are fairly comparable to animals, incidentally. quote: I used to say that spare the rod spoil the child did not necessarily mean to beat them with it, but to use it to teach, like a teacher in a school would use a pointer to a blackboard. The rod is one of many tools in a huge spectrum of tools. If you find yourself reaching for it more than a few times in the course of the upbringing of a child, you're doing a poor job of teaching. This isn't uncommon, and it's quite understandable, especially since people don't spend enough time researching proper upbringing and training parents in how to do it well. But it's also unnecessary for humans to always stay at the bottom rung of the ladder of skills and knowledge in every area where it's possible to "get by". quote: That is how lessons are learned. Not the lessons that are important. It's the traditional way to go about things, but not the best way. I'm not one of those nuts who say one should never touch a child, but I do consider it something that should be a very rare event. And the people who share my opinions have gotten exceedingly aware, mature, responsible and well adjusted children by applying this idea to the rearing of theirs. Some children do need occasional physical feedback, especially if they're below average intelligence, but most do not. If you can't recount each and every occasion you've had to use physical feedback, and the reasons for using it, then you're using it way too often, and need to reexamine your rearing methods. You may also want to bear in mind that humans use relative scales. If pain is a regular component of rearing, then the scale adjusts to accomodate it, and the effect is lost. What matters in this regard, is to pay attention to the scale. Be consistent about the amount of positive and negative feedback you use in relation to the importance of impressing the lesson in question. Exceed the usual level for a given point on the scale only when the behavior is excessively positive or negative in relation to the usual behavior (expectation level adjustment). Back it up with setting a good example, exposing them to good role models, satisfying their curiosity (but try to teach them how to find the answers themselves) and showing them that your role in their life is to be a long-term positive influence. A healthy child will respect a respectable parent, it's how they're wired. If they don't respect you, introspection is in order, not a thrashing. I've not found any exceptions that didn't need medication. Health, al-Aswad.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875