quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have repeatedly AVOIDED violence by making they aware of the cost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

It's all the slavering over what people would do with, say, an intruder, that gets me. It smacks too much of joyful aggression dressed up as righteous defence - so many 'solutions', in other words, waiting in eager anticipation of the problem one day coming along to fit them.

That is like saying that using my seatbelt is slavering for a car wreck
Or working out in advance the best way to get out of a fire means you are
waiting for a house fire with eager anticipation

If I'd ever seen a thread on here about comparing seat belts, with pictures of each poster's seat belt, demonstrating the lovingly-detailed stitching of each and general craftsmanship, along with comments like 'Mine can hold a force 50/500/500 Gs, what can yours hold?' . . . I might agree that yours is a fair comparison. And if you and others were once to talk about your guns as ugly things that do an ugly, but occasionally necessary, job (let alone the ugliest of all jobs - as I see it) . . . my opinion might alter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

With a fire extinguisher they are always used in an ugly situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have repeatedly AVOIDED violence by making they aware of the cost.

So I repeat my earlier question....
Why then, given the recent spate of killings where the shooter doesn't do this where there are other avenues of deterrent apart from killing, do you stand and defend the shooter when it's discussed on here??

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So you see that I am right except for my failure to hold firearms in the same distain you do.
Well that is something.

I'm pretty content with calling American culture highly violent. It shows up pretty much everywhere including our mass media.............Adding or removing guns won't change that attribute of our culture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Firearms are a tool, like a fire extinguisher. The ugliness of each is the situation in which they are
used. With a fire extinguisher they are always used in an ugly situation.
There are many uses for firearms which are not the least bit ugly.
Many firearms, almost anything designed by John Browning are beautiful things.
It is the people and the improper use by some that is ugly.
Do you think that facing down a drug dealer in my yard is ugly because I had a gun?
It was ugly because he tried to sneak up on me.
The ugliness WAS PUT TO AN END because he became aware that he was heading down
a VERY unhealthy path. Had I waited till that last second someone, maybe both of us ,
would have been on the ground bleeding. Even by your definition in that case my firearm
was a thing of beauty (though not at all esthetically pleasing).

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Firearms are a tool, like a fire extinguisher. The ugliness of each is the situation in which they are
used. With a fire extinguisher they are always used in an ugly situation.
There are many uses for firearms which are not the least bit ugly.
Many firearms, almost anything designed by John Browning are beautiful things.
It is the people and the improper use by some that is ugly.
Do you think that facing down a drug dealer in my yard is ugly because I had a gun?
It was ugly because he tried to sneak up on me.
The ugliness WAS PUT TO AN END because he became aware that he was heading down
a VERY unhealthy path. Had I waited till that last second someone, maybe both of us ,
would have been on the ground bleeding. Even by your definition in that case my firearm
was a thing of beauty (though not at all esthetically pleasing).

And here is the difference that has been pointed out to you (and a few others) many times....
An awful lot of people, even gun owners, who choose to pick another tool or deterrent when facing a possible assailant whereas you always appear to choose your gun as the number one tool almost exclusively.
And whenever a case is discussed on these threads, several persistent posters are almost always defending the shooter to the point of spouting extreme comparisons to back up their thesis of shooting first when there is (in a lot of scenarios) no need to shoot at all or even have a gun drawn.

Typical case in point is your example of a drug dealer in your yard.
You pulled a gun on him.
Why a gun?? Why not a baseball base with nails in or a piece of 2x4??
Or a handy kitchen chair you could whack him with and keep him at arms length?
Are you a mind reader and knew for certain that he was a drug dealer and packing??
It is this instant preference of the gun and the mentality of it being the weapon of choice that us anti-gun people are talking about.
And when you get your panties in a bunch over it, we are all suddenly anti-defense as well.
Then you start spouting extreme examples to justify your case!!

To quote your own words "It is the people and the improper use by some that is ugly".
For many of us, that attitude and propensity to grab a gun first and foremost makes that action on it's own... ugly.
Then we get cases where the gun owner shoots and kills someone not having a firearm.
To me, someone not packing does not deserve to get shot under any circumstances whatsoever.
That's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome - overreacting and undue excessive force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"To me, someone not packing does not deserve to get shot under any circumstances whatsoever.
That's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome - overreacting and undue excessive force. "

You must not be aware that in the US more people are beaten to death than are murdered
in England.
What you are actually saying that it is murder if I am better armed than an attacker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"To me, someone not packing does not deserve to get shot under any circumstances whatsoever.
That's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome - overreacting and undue excessive force. "

You must not be aware that in the US more people are beaten to death than are murdered
in England.
What you are actually saying that it is murder if I am better armed than an attacker.

No, not at all.
Just that you appear to prefer to use sledgehammer tactics and draw a gun when in a lot of scenarios there is no need to.
This is precisely the reason why guns are dangerous and deadly even when they probably weren't meant to be used as such.
Accidents do happen - far too many of them involving guns where the victim wasn't armed.
If they didn't draw a gun and used just about anything else instead, the victim probably wouldn't be dead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And here is the difference that has been pointed out to you (and a few others) many times....
An awful lot of people, even gun owners, who choose to pick another tool or deterrent when facing a possible assailant whereas you always appear to choose your gun as the number one tool almost exclusively.
And whenever a case is discussed on these threads, several persistent posters are almost always defending the shooter to the point of spouting extreme comparisons to back up their thesis of shooting first when there is (in a lot of scenarios) no need to shoot at all or even have a gun drawn.

Typical case in point is your example of a drug dealer in your yard.
You pulled a gun on him.
Why a gun?? Why not a baseball base with nails in or a piece of 2x4??
Or a handy kitchen chair you could whack him with and keep him at arms length?
Are you a mind reader and knew for certain that he was a drug dealer and packing??
It is this instant preference of the gun and the mentality of it being the weapon of choice that us anti-gun people are talking about.
And when you get your panties in a bunch over it, we are all suddenly anti-defense as well.
Then you start spouting extreme examples to justify your case!!

To quote your own words "It is the people and the improper use by some that is ugly".
For many of us, that attitude and propensity to grab a gun first and foremost makes that action on it's own... ugly.
Then we get cases where the gun owner shoots and kills someone not having a firearm.
To me, someone not packing does not deserve to get shot under any circumstances whatsoever.
That's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome - overreacting and undue excessive force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"To me, someone not packing does not deserve to get shot under any circumstances whatsoever.
That's a sledgehammer to crack a nut syndrome - overreacting and undue excessive force. "

You must not be aware that in the US more people are beaten to death than are murdered
in England.
What you are actually saying that it is murder if I am better armed than an attacker.

No, not at all.
Just that you appear to prefer to use sledgehammer tactics and draw a gun when in a lot of scenarios there is no need to.
This is precisely the reason why guns are dangerous and deadly even when they probably weren't meant to be used as such.
Accidents do happen - far too many of them involving guns where the victim wasn't armed.
If they didn't draw a gun and used just about anything else instead, the victim probably wouldn't be dead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman
Not the sidetrack this thread, LP, but whips were originally hunting weapons. You put a weight on the end, and you have a 'self-returning stone', for lack of a better word. I saw one used that way in a wilderness survival class. The gentleman took a 1 ounce fishing sinker and lashed it to the falls. He could put substantial dents in a car door from a good distance away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

BamaD, I think you need to look up what taking arguments apart means, and surrender...

Since you quote the Art Of War (most likely without having read it, you don't seem to have the "attention span" to phrase it politely) one should assume that you are able to read, now you just need to work on comprehension skills, thought they were part of basic education?

ETA: I am so happy to live in Europe where we keep guns out of the hands of, let's say not so well adjusted folks... Might also be the reason that we don't have kids shooting kids daily as those "responsible gun owners" keep their guns within the reach of children....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If he doesn't have a gun he is half your age (30) in my case has 30 lbs on you and a baseball bat
it's murder if you shoot him. Unless British English is a lot more different from American English
that I thought. You are repeating nice sounding platitudes that have nothing to do with reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If he doesn't have a gun he is half your age (30) in my case has 30 lbs on you and a baseball bat
it's murder if you shoot him. Unless British English is a lot more different from American English
that I thought. You are repeating nice sounding platitudes that have nothing to do with reality.

Oh right. You want a real scene to link with reality??

Picture this -
I'm a 5ft2" overweight person not too agile on my pins with mobility problems with my arms/shoulders.
I'm up against a 6ft4" 18yo in a blind rage with a very sharp serrated steak knife held at my daughter's throat.
My disability is also well known to the assailant.
Yes, this is real, it happened just before xmas in my kitchen in 2012.
I grabbed the yard broom and whacked it round the guy's head with plenty of gusto while the OH was on the phone to the police.
He slumped to the floor and the knife was dropped, effectively disarming him.
Daughter was released, unharmed bar a small scratch to her throat where the knife point was.
And before the asswipe managed to come round to rub his very sore and bleeding head, the ARV unit arrived with drawn guns (yes, we do have them here) and took him away in cuffs.
Apparently, he spent several hours in A&E (ER to you) getting cleaned up and checked out before spending the night in the cells.
No, it wasn't an unknown intruder, it was my step-son having a paddy and throwing a tantrum and he seriously got out of hand.

Even if I had the opportunity to reach for a gun, I wouldn't have. Not in a million years.
And not because he happened to be my stepson either (no love lost between us!).
The difference is in the thinking, the immediate reaction, and the execution of that action.
End result: The guy isn't dead.
I can see in your mind, and like several cases discussed on here, no doubt he would have been shot and killed, intentionally or otherwise.
Would you point your gun at the other person regardless, then shoot if they so much as flinched??
I'm inclined to think you would, then claim some idiotic SYG reason for doing so.

So yeah... a real case for you to ponder and one I actually faced not too long ago.
You would draw a gun without even thinking. I wouldn't. And there's the difference.
And that is why I find some people's opinion on here to be... ugly. Purely by their thuggish thought process.
To defend a shooter where the other person wasn't armed, and pretty obviously not packing and certainly not pointing a gun at them, and for the shooter to kill that other person is just sick. And to have laws that legally allow the shooter to walk free is asinine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If he doesn't have a gun he is half your age (30) in my case has 30 lbs on you and a baseball bat
it's murder if you shoot him. Unless British English is a lot more different from American English
that I thought. You are repeating nice sounding platitudes that have nothing to do with reality.

Oh right. You want a real scene to link with reality??

Picture this -
I'm a 5ft2" overweight person not too agile on my pins with mobility problems with my arms/shoulders.
I'm up against a 6ft4" 18yo in a blind rage with a very sharp serrated steak knife held at my daughter's throat.
My disability is also well known to the assailant.
Yes, this is real, it happened just before xmas in my kitchen in 2012.
I grabbed the yard broom and whacked it round the guy's head with plenty of gusto while the OH was on the phone to the police.
He slumped to the floor and the knife was dropped, effectively disarming him.
Daughter was released, unharmed bar a small scratch to her throat where the knife point was.
And before the asswipe managed to come round to rub his very sore and bleeding head, the ARV unit arrived with drawn guns (yes, we do have them here) and took him away in cuffs.
Apparently, he spent several hours in A&E (ER to you) getting cleaned up and checked out before spending the night in the cells.
No, it wasn't an unknown intruder, it was my step-son having a paddy and throwing a tantrum and he seriously got out of hand.

Even if I had the opportunity to reach for a gun, I wouldn't have. Not in a million years.
And not because he happened to be my stepson either (no love lost between us!).
The difference is in the thinking, the immediate reaction, and the execution of that action.
End result: The guy isn't dead.
I can see in your mind, and like several cases discussed on here, no doubt he would have been shot and killed, intentionally or otherwise.
Would you point your gun at the other person regardless, then shoot if they so much as flinched??
I'm inclined to think you would, then claim some idiotic SYG reason for doing so.

So yeah... a real case for you to ponder and one I actually faced not too long ago.
You would draw a gun without even thinking. I wouldn't. And there's the difference.
And that is why I find some people's opinion on here to be... ugly. Purely by their thuggish thought process.
To defend a shooter where the other person wasn't armed, and pretty obviously not packing and certainly not pointing a gun at them, and for the shooter to kill that other person is just sick. And to have laws that legally allow the shooter to walk free is asinine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And I wouldn't have had to fight him because it would have been fatal for him to attack me,
I would have made this clear to him and unless he is a dedicated candidate for a Darwin award.
Why is it that everyone who opposes guns turns out to be Superman?