Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bedridden homeowner shoots burglar

Crime Guns Self-Defense

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 04:16 AM

^Yes, I think that ownership of REAL bows should be regulated (hell, a lot of kids lose eyes to kiddie arrows).

Some things are only meant to destroy, and have no other purpose.

I shuuder to think what happens with a bow and arrow in the hands of an untrained person (and archery is one of the few sports I ever excelled at).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#42 ervin64

ervin64
  • Islander
  • 280 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 10:38 AM

I think any lawful citizen should be able to carry any weapon they want to carry.

#43 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 12:15 PM

Rhea, on Jun 5 2003, 05:20 PM, said:

^Yes, I think that ownership of REAL bows should be regulated (hell, a lot of kids lose eyes to kiddie arrows).
The rescurves I use are simply target bows and not meant for hunting game or for killing people.  They are meant to destroy.  That said the arrows they fire might very well still kill or harm someone if it hits them.  So does that make them a real bow?  For that matter shall we regulate atlatls?  It is after all a weapon that will kill a person if you put it to that use?  I had a professor though who simply used one for targets like an archer would?  Before you say yes you should realize just about anyone can learn with practice how tom flint nap projectile point so making a bow or atlatls can be done.  

This is where trying to regulate weapons gets downright silly.  Anything can be built into a weapon if someone is creative enough to figure out a design.  So shall we just disarm the law abiding citizens and leave them easy defenseless sheep for the wolves?
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#44 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 12:41 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Jun 5 2003, 07:19 PM, said:

Anything can be built into a weapon if someone is creative enough to figure out a design.
You should see what I did as a kid with two ordinary waterguns linked together and some wires and batteries... :sneaky: :sly: :evil:

#45 ph3n1ks

ph3n1ks

    u$oft detractor

  • Islander
  • 126 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 06:12 AM

Quote

Jon: One of the things they teach in firearms safety courses and self-defense courses is that the objective isn't to kill the intruder. The objective is to stop the attack. And that's exactly what happened here.

With all due respect, and I think you and I are on the same page here mostly, the classes I took were more centered on the idea of using the minimum amount of force necessary to neutralize the target. That said, in this day and age, with all the drug issues, double tapping the thorasic cavity or the head is the best bet to neutralize.

Quote

Bossy: I have no problems with waiting periods and registering guns. Responsible gun owners have nothing to hide. I think these things simply make it a bit harder for criminals to obtain guns. They also prevent people from obtaining one in a moment of rage.

That is the whole key *responsible*. Criminals have no respect for the laws that law abiding citizens deal with. The gun that shot Reagan and his press secretary was purchased illegally. The gun store owner was not prosecuted and did not lose his license. Until we roll back time to just after the Kennedy assasination and enforce laws from the Gun Control Act of 1969, we cannot evaluate the efficacy of any other law really.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Quote

Rhea: I often think the Founding Fathers would be appalled to know what the right to bear arms means now. It was written in a time where it was absolutely necessary to kill meat to eat and when our country was newly settled and pretty much lawless (men wore swords, too, but you don't see many people sporting sabers on the streets any more  ).

I seriously doubt they could have envisioned what this country would become, or the fact that for most homeowners who have guns, the only people they hurt is the gun owner themselves or a member of the family.

Wish we could conjure them up and ask.

Honestly, I love it when people bring up the whole Founding Fathers issue. And I am sorry but this nation's civilian populace seems pretty lawless to me.

We don't have to conjure them up, read the words they wrote back then.

Quote

Jid: Yeah, but no one kills by directly attending church or giving a speech, just like no one dies "in the name of handguns" but rather *by* handguns.

No one is killed by handguns, rifles, shotguns, or any other weapon, I repeat no one is killed by weapons. They are simply the tools of the violent person holding them. It is physically possible to kill with bare hands. Should we cut peoples hands off at birth because they are potentially deadly weapons. Keyboards would be bigger.

Like Archie Bunker said, "Would it make you feel better little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?"

Quote

John Burke:

Quote

(Bossy @ Jun 4 2003, 05:14 PM)
I have to jump in here and say that this is a totally incorrect statement. The only real funtion of guns is not to kill people. There is a fairly large portion of the population of Wisconsin that still uses guns for hunting. Why do they hunt? Because they need to feed their families. My brother relies on game to help supplement his family of 5's meager grocery budget, and this is not an uncommon occurance here or in a number of other states.


I was speaking of handguns; obviously hunting rifles are a seperate case.

I'd suggest that even they ought to be more tightly regulated-- say, some system where you're issued a rifle when you go out to hunt, and have to return it when you're done-- but I doubt that would garner much support, so...

Quote

You can use a hammer just as easily to kill. Does that mean we should outlaw them? 

A hammer's main function is to put a nail through a piece of wood; a gun's main function is to put a bullet through flesh (of some sort).

Yes, they are both technically tools, but I believe there's a distinction to be made...

There is no distinction, I can kill with a ball-point pen if you like. The difference between handguns and rifles is about range, nothing more. The regulations need to come in when firearms are used in the commission of crimes not before. Our country was founded on the principle that there are certain inalienable rights that each and every citizen has. You are born with them, you do not have to exercise them. Up to the point that you violate the rights of another person in the exercise of your own, you continue to have those rights. We call this commiting a crime.

"The right to swing one's fist ends at the other person's nose." --Oliver Wendell Holmes--

Quote

CJ Aegis: I would disagree I think our founding fathers realized what the two best last ditch assurances are for keeping the government from trying to whittle away the Constitution.

This is the fundamental, bottom of the pile reason for the second amendment.

"The best defense against a tyrannical government is a well armed populace" --Thomas Jefferson--

Quote

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -- Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America--

You don't have to agree with it, you don't even have to like it. But, it is there. Every law abiding citizen has a right to keep and bear arms, and to infringe upon that right is unconstitutional.

Plainly put a vocal majority of soft thinking ultra liberals have decided to blame one of society's woes on a defenseless inanimate object. These are the same people that think that video and computer games that portray violence are causing our children to be violent. The real issue here is accountability. In a world of plea bargains, diminished capacity, and other legal loopholes, it is amazing that anybody does anything anymore. If we continue to take credit for only the good things that happen, and eschew responsibility for the bad, our civilization will continue its downward spiral into oblivion. Convicted criminals must be held accountable, children that get violent must be too.  Until we do this leave inanimate objects alone.
Support Evolution! Electrify the gene pool's fence!

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, or just pray for peace!

#46 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 06:27 AM

Quote

CJ AEGIS said: The rescurves I use are simply target bows and not meant for hunting game or for killing people. They are meant to destroy. That said the arrows they fire might very well still kill or harm someone if it hits them. So does that make them a real bow? For that matter shall we regulate atlatls? It is after all a weapon that will kill a person if you put it to that use? I had a professor though who simply used one for targets like an archer would? Before you say yes you should realize just about anyone can learn with practice how tom flint nap projectile point so making a bow or atlatls can be done.

Cool CG, I didn't realise you did Archery as well? Nice. What bow do you shoot? Not compoud I hope - or I might be forced to engage in a holy war :D Myself I'm a supporter of Win + Win; yeah, I'm buying Korean, so shoot me. How about your arrows? Carbons? I bet you've got X10's or something  :cool:

Addressing the point in hand - the bow I have in my house and the arrows can easily kill someone suprisingly effectivly at a range up to.. I'd say.. 40-60yards but a competent archer can shoot a 5cm circle over 100yards away consistenty. Someone packing a compound (For those playing at home - these ones have telescopic sights, multiple strings, a spirit level, cams to help pull, a "trigger" called a release aid..whole 9 yards) could probably do better than someone wielding a slow fire gun when it comes to accuracy.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#47 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 06:45 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Jun 5 2003, 06:19 PM, said:

The rescurves I use are simply target bows and not meant for hunting game or for killing people.  They are meant to destroy.
:cool: I was speaking of hunting bows, not target bows, although they can do some damage, too.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#48 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 07:53 AM

ph3n1ks, on Jun 6 2003, 12:16 PM, said:

With all due respect, and I think you and I are on the same page here mostly, the classes I took were more centered on the idea of using the minimum amount of force necessary to neutralize the target. That said, in this day and age, with all the drug issues, double tapping the thorasic cavity or the head is the best bet to neutralize.
Well, I never said the best way to stop an attack wasn't to neutralize the target... ;)

But given the legal environment here in California, the thing to say is "stop the attack". It's a semantic issue, but an important one, nevertheless.

(Reminds me of a police officer in a press confrence... When asked by the press why he didn't fire any warning shots, he replied, "I did. I fired two warning shots into his chest and one warning shot into his head. After which he laid on the ground and complied.")

Other than that, sir, I'll agree with everything you said.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#49 ph3n1ks

ph3n1ks

    u$oft detractor

  • Islander
  • 126 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 04:05 PM

Quote

(Reminds me of a police officer in a press confrence... When asked by the press why he didn't fire any warning shots, he replied, "I did. I fired two warning shots into his chest and one warning shot into his head. After which he laid on the ground and complied.")

LOL... I remember something like that from my weapons indoc for security work.

But you are right, the semantics are the key in this dangerous PC time. In some areas it is "justifiable homicide." Some might call it "self-defense manslaughter."

Currently, I reside in Texas. I have gotten used to some of the more interesting laws here and forget that in places like California the way to make a AR-15/M-16 variant legal is to remove the pistol grip because that qualifies it as an assault rifle, something the gun control gurus never have actually defined clearly. But in Texas, we can still legally shoot horse-thieves, well really any type of thief that is in possesion of property stolen from the shooter.

Anyway, what pray tell is this thing about .40S&W Glocks blowing up in people's hands? I had one, admittedly it was extensively worked over by AroTek, that I had not a problem with.
Support Evolution! Electrify the gene pool's fence!

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, or just pray for peace!

#50 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 05:10 PM

ph3n1ks, on Jun 6 2003, 10:09 PM, said:

But you are right, the semantics are the key in this dangerous PC time. In some areas it is "justifiable homicide." Some might call it "self-defense manslaughter."
"Shooting to live" is one of the most recent I've heard....


Quote

Currently, I reside in Texas. I have gotten used to some of the more interesting laws here...

Pardon me while I say that you're rather lucky. ;)

Quote

...and forget that in places like California the way to make a AR-15/M-16 variant legal is to remove the pistol grip because that qualifies it as an assault rifle, something the gun control gurus never have actually defined clearly.

I was in my favorite gun store, perusing the long rifles, and I noticed an AK-47 on the rack. So I asked one of the salesmen what was up, since I counted no less than three "evil" features. He replied that I was missing the "benevolence feature." Turns out, it was a pump-action. They removed the gas system and kludged on a pump on the forward handguard.

Quote

Anyway, what pray tell is this thing about .40S&W Glocks blowing up in people's hands?

That's something of a private joke between CJ and I, based on the recent numbers of KBs in .40 Glocks... Seems to be a problem with certain brands of ammunition, especially +P varieties. No one's really sure what it is, but some leading theories fault the partially unsupported case in the Glock chamber, because Glock bored out and undercut their 9mm design to make the .40S&W fit where HK scaled back their .45ACP to make their .40. All told, it's really a statistically insignificant number, it's just documented enough so that there's notice taken.

That being said, I tend to be a 1911 man meself. ;)

Glock KB FAQ
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#51 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 05:45 PM

I do own some weapons, a shotgun, a revolver and a rifle I inherited from my grandfather, I would like to learn how to be a decent archer but it's one of those things that has been lost in the great timesink that is my life and I know a significant amount about weapons so my opinion is simply this, enforce the laws on the books now. There will still be gun crime, just like there is gun crime in Australia, Japan, and Great Britian now even with various levels of bans. If someone wants to make a weapon, they can make a weapon from just about anything. Even sodium in a time release capsule could be a pretty devastating weapon or mixed cleaning fluid, or a sharpened stick, or a piece of metal from the scrap heap or a tire iron and so on and so on. Education and gun safety will go far in avoiding accidents but there will still be accidents due to the very nature of our world. Complete safety is an illusion that banning guns will not help achieve in my opinion and in the hands of a responsible, trained individual a gun can provide both food and safety, but there will always be the irresponsible, the ignorant, and the criminal so features that make it more difficult like a fingerprint ID system that works or enforcing existing gun control legistation is a good idea.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#52 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 01:41 AM

I am all one the side of the gentleman whose actions started this thread. He did exactly what I would have done. If I had not had a gun most likely I would not be making this post.

I have pulled a gun three times in my life with the intent of taking anothers life. It is a act which profoundly changes one, at least for me and those I have talked to about it, mainly police and other "civilians" like myself. Would I have fired if the people I was pointing the gun at had not fled, and instantly? I have asked myself that many times, spent much time running the actions over and over again in my mind.

I am a big woman, nearly 6 ft and definitely not bird boned, but when you are being assaulted by some one who has just picked you up and thrown you roughly twently feet across a room you get a strong understanding of the concept of 'fear for ones life'. I managed to get to my gun. I targeted him with a calmness tht I am proud of to this day. The one sad laugh I have of that day is that to see such a huge man levitateing like a scared cat, and sprinting away with his pants down around his knees was so ludricrus that I didn't shoot him in the back like a huge part of me wished to.

The second time was in defense of a third party, and I will not go into the details.

The third involved a two day seige of terror that culminated in my duplex being broken into through a back window and the front, and only door simultaneously. They fled when they saw the borrowed pistol. They'd stolen mine the night before and had come back with it in hand. Once they left, I tossed my new door key into a hiding place, locked the door on the way out, and rushed to the front half of the duplex where my friend met me at her door, rifle in one hand, phone in the other. When the cops got there, they came in silent and their pounding on the door nearly got them shot by my scared friend. Before they left they told us in all seriousness that I should have shot the intruders, with the ending comment of "just make sure they fall inside the house."

Gotta love Texas and our "castle laws".

Also let me add that I grew up around guns and hunting. My father made sure all three of us kids learned and practised gun safety and proper handling. I agree that it should be taught in schools as a mandatory class. Carelessness kills.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#53 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 03:34 AM

Quote

Ilphi:
Cool CG, I didn't realise you did Archery as well? Nice.

I sort of dabble into it; though not as much as Iíd like to and not with the equipment Iíd like to get.  My real passion sporting wise is canoeing but I figure archery is something I can do when conditions are less than favorable for canoeing. ;)  .    

Quote

Ilphi: Nice. What bow do you shoot? Not compoud I hope - or I might be forced to engage in a holy war

I use just a regular old recurve and nothing too fancy there.  I played around with compounds in college and tried some that friends had.  It always felt like I was cheating without the challenge or the charm of the recurve.  As for the bow your guess is as good as mine perhaps even better.  Suckers are so old that they donít even possess a name of the manufacture on them.  Iíve actually been shopping around looking at bows but really havenít hit on one yet that tickled my fancy enough.  Any suggestions as to what are potential winners to check over?  

    

Quote

Jon: That's something of a private joke between CJ and I, based on the recent numbers of KBs in .40 Glocks... Seems to be a problem with certain brands of ammunition, especially +P varieties.

Looks like you want to stay away from South African ammunition in them too.  They seem to ship an awful lot of bad ammunition.  

Quote

Ilphi:
Addressing the point in hand - the bow I have in my house and the arrows can easily kill someone suprisingly effectivly at a range up to.. I'd say.. 40-60yards but a competent archer can shoot a 5cm circle over 100yards away consistenty. Someone packing a compound (For those playing at home - these ones have telescopic sights, multiple strings, a spirit level, cams to help pull, a "trigger" called a release aid..whole 9 yards) could probably do better than someone wielding a slow fire gun when it comes to accuracy.

Iíd say that tends to match with my experience.  At about 50 meters the accuracy of a normal pistol drops off enough that even a competent shooter will have a tough go.  IIRC most Olympic and Competitive pistol shooting is done at 50 yards.  In reality the maximum effective range for most pistols and shooters is going to be much shorter than that.  Iíd say a competent archer with a composite with all the toys holds many of the cards on accuracy against pistols once you start working the range out from 50 meters.  Now a good long gun would change that.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#54 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 04:22 AM

The Hoyt USA bows are certainly worth checking out. In particular the Gold Medalist is an excellent package - if you are a dabbler this will suit you fine. It has a smooth shot, good dynamics and great accuracy.
Posted Image
http://www.hoytusa.c...263977045559093

Around the market:

The Samicks are Korean made but get excellent press:
http://www.lancaster...ows-samick.html
The Agulla Ultra or Agulla series are pretty neat, as is the Mizar Bow.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Crime, Guns, Self-Defense

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users