The fact that you believed he had ripped you off before is irrelevant. The fact that (you say) he had expressed an intent to keep taking your stuff is irrelevant. You do not have a right, either morally or legally, to exact physical punishment on people you believe have wronged you. You are entitled to use only what force is necesary to protect yourself or others from physical harm and that’s it. Anything else is assault. Don’t let your exaggerated sense of self-righteousness delude you into thinking that you have a right to kill people for taking your shit. Certainly don’t expect anyone to praise you for your “restraint” in not committing murder.
Good for you. We’re not talking about the Netherlands, however.
Dio, keep thinking that, you’ll go far. I’m sure it would count for a whole lot, if a thief, invader or killer gets in your home. My rules are simple and direct. Nobody breaks into my home. Nobody trashes and ransacks my home. Nobody steals from me. Nobody. If somebody wrongs me and the law does not take care of it (this guy had made a career of it already, and had already learned about “turnstile justice”) then I do have the right to “take care of business” right then and there. Apparently, the law agreed with me, as there were no charges against me, no hearings, no hassle from the police. :wally
I would have preferred not to make this so personal, but you seem to have no such compunctions, and I have a policy against being insulted with impunity.
Frankly, I think you’re lying. Making shit up.
You know this guy? You could have told the police precisely who to investigate, and still they did nothing? You trusted the veracity of these “spies and informants”, who apparently are in a position to hear him brag on his “score”? What, they met him at church? Alternatively, if they are part of his social group, why would you believe them , if they are no better than he? Why didn’t you refer the police to them, that they might substantiate your allegations? Of course, if they are members of the miscreants social circle, the police might not believe them, the veracity of a “snitch” is less than optimal. You had no such qualms?
This man burgled you before, but didn’t steal your vast array of personal defense weaponry? Why? Weapons are very fungible on the underground market, they are much more saleable than jewlery, DVD players, that sort of thing. Yet you still have them? How every odd.
And indeed, why pick the baseball bat? Nothing instills a sense of cooperation and atonement as quickly as the sound of a pump shotgun being cycled. Surely you know this? Doesn’t it therefore follow that you the simple presence of such a threat would have made any physical assault on your part unnecessary? Unless, of course, you chose this course of action for other reasons, like, for instance, revenge. Yet, having all this weaponry at your disposal, you choose the baseball bat. You give us little reason to believe that this was born of compassionate consideration, and considerable reason to believe you wanted the opportunity to hurt him. Which would rather obviate your claims of “self-defense”.
And of course, your last sentence repeats the same canard: that somehow I have denied your right to self-defense, regardless of how many times I state otherwise.
For myself, it has been decades since I’ve raised my hand against another. Wasn’t much, but it was unnecessary, born of fear and testosterone-addled machismo. I was, and remain, heartily ashamed of it. If that makes me a wussy in your eyes, so be it. I see little in what you present here to suggest that your regard and respect is worth having.
I have no gun, have never needed one. You have seven. Volumes are therein spoken.
Least deadly? No pillows, eh?
Steve, if I may interject briefly. I’d rather not guess whether it was justified or not; I don’t really wanna get into that argument 'cuz I’m certain that I don’t know all the particulars and that’d be a poor footing for me to judge from. However, the way this chain of events is coming across to me, is that you exacted revenge on this person and seem a bit gleeful about it. I’m probably completely wrong, but the way this story is coming out, that’s the feeling I’m getting.
The problem here, and this is the thrust of this post (the stuff above is merely introductory), is that nothing you’ve said is doing anything to convince the folks on the margins of the gun control debate is gonna help them to believe that gun owners are generally responsible people and not bloodthirsty cowboys just waiting and hoping for a chance to wreak violence. Rather, your arguments as made here are supporting and encouraging belief in that false stereotype - something all gun owners should be fighting against. What you’re saying just ain’t helping.
Again, I’d like to emphasize that I’m not looking to argue with you, or make any value judgments over your actions. I just want to let you know how what you’re posting appears to me - and where gun control is concerned, I’m on your side of the fence.
Mebbe, but they are damned thin volumes, my friend.
I caught this guy in my house, in the act, that’s when the “festivities” began. My “arsenal” was locked up and I only had the combination - I’ve gotten rid of them since then, I simply lost my interest in hunting and skeet/target shooting (not that it’s anyone’s business). I had told the police previously who it was after the first two break-ins, and my neighbors had witnessed it (him carting my TV and stereo etc down the stairs) and told the police also - nothing had been done about it. I had already seen that the law was not controlling him or dealing with him as they should have. I picked the bat, because it seemed more “satisfying” to me, it was most readily handy, and I had no intention of killing him outright. Compassion had nothing to do with it. Neither did atonement. I don’t give a damn about him “seeing the light” or “atonement” or anything else. I was just as “concerned” about his rights and dignity as he was about mine - no concern at all. Sort of fitting. I do care about not being hassled by scumbags who want to get over at my expense. I would do it again, and not even blink.
Up yours too. Take all your self righteous feel good garbage and stuff it. If you won’t protect what is yours, if you won’t protect your own living space, that most basic thing, then you get what you deserve. If you won’t protect what is yours, if you won’t protect your own home, then hell yes you are a wuss in my view.
Yeah, “they” keep ignoring the part where I repeatedly stated that this was a Repeat Performance by the same person. “They” keep ignoring the part where I stated that the “law” had taken no action. I had “followed the rules” and simply reported the incidents, and nothing had been done. It was a fucking joke. Restraint had not worked. So, the final time, I went off. Going off had positive results.
Oh, but I will. Never said otherwise, it is you who insists on twisting my meaning to fit within your limitations. Don’t have a gun, but I keep an attack-trained zebra finch. Seldom bother to lock my door. Had a bike stolen, cost me $5. Shrugged, bought another.
I’m not afraid. So, in that sense, you’re quite right, I’ve gotten precisely what I deserve.
As have you.
First, please do me the courtesy of not coming into this debate assuming that I’m some doubletalking weasel who is maliciously out to try to entrap you in a tangled web of apparent deceit. I’m entering into this discussion with genuine curiosity.
Second, I still have not set up any strawmen of any sort. I’m pointing out what might be seen as a very extreme extension of a pro-gun position, then immediately acknowledging that most (if not all) pro-gun people do not hold that position, and asking what their logical reasons are. A strawman would be pointing out the extreme extension of a pro-gun position and then implying that pro-gun people DO support that position, or arguing against that extreme extension as if I were arguing against their actual positions. Let’s flip this around and look at the equivalent in the opposite direction:
NOT A STRAWMAN: “Well, you want to outlaw all pistols*, because they can be concealed and can kill people. But steak knives can be concealed and can kill people. I assume you don’t want to outlaw steak knives… what’s the difference?”
*I, personally, do not want to outlaw all pistols. This is an example.
STRAWMAN: “Well, you want to outlaw all pistols, because they can be concealed and can kill people. But steak knives can be concealed and can kill people. I suppose you want to outlaw steak knives. haha! look at the stupid liberal who wants to outlaw steak knives!”
See the difference?
Fair enough. Hypothetical: You wake up one morning and are king of the world with absolute power to set up laws precisely as you want them, with no risk of them being misinterpreted, misapplied, or later used as precedents for things you don’t intend. What gun/weapon control laws do you promulgate?
Because why, precisely? You think I’m lying about my positions? Or because my positions (and you’ll note that I have NEVER endorsed the AWB or any other ban of currently legal weapons… I’m in favor of waiting periods and background checks, but I swear on a stack of agnostic-bible-equivalents that that’s not just a starting position which I’ll later turn more severe in some fashion) are so inherently evil that only someone untrustworthy could espouse them?
Wow, I would have thought you would be able to put together a better argument than that. Guess not, eh?
That seems quite reasonable. Two comments:
(1) While the NRA may never officially lobby for or endorse ordnance, there seems to be a lot of interest in the (ill-defined) “gun culture” in converting weapons to automatic fire, and other things that toe that line. (Granted, this may be a misconception based on what the liberal media wants me to think 
)
(2) This definition is (necessarily) somewhat imprecise. How fast does a gun have to fire before it becomes a “machine gun”? How much do a shotgun’s shells have to scatter before it has an “area effect”? Granted, I’m not sure if a better definition could exist, but because the definition is so clearly imprecise, I think pro-gun people should have more sympathy with, say, the efforts to ban the .50 rifle. Now, I personally don’t see any reason to support that ban, but I don’t think it’s prima facie obvious that a weapon couldn’t ever become “ordnance” just by having a sufficiently large calibre. After all, one of these recoilless rifles can be used by a single person and, if it were firing a non-explosive charge, would basically just be a really damn big rifle.
As I’ve said several times, if your response is “I refuse to support such a measure because I feel it would be warped into a total ban or would open the door for such a ban”, well, I can’t tell you that there’s anything illogical about that position. On the other hand, it doesn’t particularly address the merits of the original suggestion, and leads to a somewhat unsatisfying debating experience…
Fair enough. I will attempt to be careful not to demonize the NRA. Well, I will attempt to be careful not to groundlessly demonize the NRA
Well, OK, then. Does that mean I’m pro-gun or anti-gun?
catsixI didn’t respond to some of what you wrote because it was quite similar to what I’d been discussing with ExTank. Let me know if you feel that I neglected a key point.
Except that there is a good reason, assuming that the basic argument behind waiting periods (that they will reduce crimes of passion) is a sound one. No rights are absolute, even freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. When weighing a potential infringment of rights, we need to weight how serious an infringement it is vs. the benefit it provides. For instance, various restrictions on free speech (libel, slander, invasion of privacy, fighting words) are things which are sufficiently damaging as to outweigh the extent to which they limit free expression.
So if I could prove to you (and I admit I’m pulling this number out of my ass) that 500 lives would be saved in the US every year if there were a 7-day waiting period, do you think that would be a sufficient benefit to society to allow an infringement of gun-owning-rights which seems (to me) to be quite minor?
It’s not uncommon for there to be restrictions on how and when perfectly legal items can be sold. For instance, it’s frequently illegal to sell porn within a certain distance of a school. So if there is a benefit to putting restrictions on when and where guns can be sold, and if those restrictions are not sufficiently onerous, I don’t see any problem with it. (Is there a benefit? That’s for a another debate… but your position seems to be that even if there is a benefit, your right to buy guns at a gun show would outweight that benefit…)
No, but we do have stricter licensing standards for driving a big rig than a normal car, and you can ride a bicycle without a license at all (usually). And airline pilots need more training that private pilots who fly Cessnas around.
From post 107 – In response to elucidator -
Max, When ‘nukes’ are bought up they are almost always a strawman. Maybe I did not get the jest of you post.
If I could be sure that registration would help prevent gun crimes, and would not lead to confiscation, It would be worth looking into the cost/benefit aspects of it. And sunset it like the AWB.
Noted. I like the agnostic-bible-equivalents reference. I too am agnostic. And Liberal (it’s getting hard to tell anymore).
The reason I said ‘I don’t trust you’ is the loop holes above, and I’m not King. The only way I could demonstrate pre-existing knowledge, is to take a fire-arms course. Not that I wouldn’t, but I don’t think you, and many gun control advocates have thought this or many other laws through. Many, if not most of the anti-gun folks, just want gun laws. But they don’t know enough about guns to make informed decisions.
You may want to check out this thread.
Anyway, I have tons to do in the next few days (adopting a dog), so I may be gone for a while.
Would you aree that it may be *somewhat * difficult to decide exactly when an intruder is no longer a threat?
I will stipulate that if I crush his knee with my first blow, and I’m certain he has no weapon, than further blows are not needed and would be considered criminal.
There’s a “sub-culture” that is always looking for a way to get full-auto “on the cheap” (w/o going through the BATF’s procedures, but also without violating current BATF regulations); these are usually shut down with revised BATF regulations P.D.Q.
The problem is that the Registry of full-auto weapons was frozen in the 80’s, which has created an unbalanced market force. Weapons which may be only worth $1,000 go for five, maybe even ten times that amount because demand is far outstripping supply.
So every few years some “genius” figures out a way to get full-auto w/o violating the current BATF regulations, and is legal until the BATF revamps their regs. MOst of these people aren’t looking to improve the criminal’s firepower, just their own, as I said, “on the cheap.” I’ve seen some of these “gimmicks,” like a spring assembly which fits on the trigger guard, and which vibrates when struck, stroking the trigger repeatedly. Everyone I’ve seen at a gun show checking these gimmicks out usually has a dubious expression on their face. If not, I’m sure they do as soon as they put the damned thing on their gun, and then proceed to blow through several hundred dollars of ammo in about five minutes! :eek:
What makes a machinegun a machinegun isn’t it’s rate-of-fire (although that is a benchmark in comparing one machinegun and another); it’s the mechanical function of the weapon. A machinegun fires one round when you pull the trigger, and then continues to cycle and fire as long as the trigger is kept depressed.
Whereas on the semi-auto weapons, the weapon fires one round with every pull of the trigger, and then the trigger must be released (to return to a “cocked” position) before the weapon will fire again. A person can get a fairly high rate-of-fire from a semi-auto just by being “quick on the trigger.” But they are not “machineguns,” and the shooter is rarely all that accurate.
Shotguns do indeed have a limited area effect, but almost all shotguns that I can think of are also carried and operated by one person, thereby categorizing them as “Arms.” And individual soldier may carry and operate a shotgun as part of ordinary equipment. I don’t know about the current mess in Iraq, but I know that as late as Vietnam, shotguns were often issued and carried as part of a squad load-out, which makes sense given the confined nature of jungle warfare. Shotguns were used a "trench sweepers in WW I, and I’m sure they saw some use in WW II, even if the History Channel hasn’t specifically mentioned thier use.
Whereas your recoilless rifle is carried by several men (or a vehicle, or is mounted on a vehicle); one as a tripod carrier, one as the weapon carrier and gunner (if possible; some of those recoilless get pretty big), and one as an ammo carrier/loader. That is a bare minimum. One person may be all that’s needed to “pull the trigger,” but it takes several people to effectively employ.
One of the rule-of-thumb criteria of ordnance that I left out (wasn’t thinking): is used in an “anti-material” role. That is, is used against vehicles, buildings, ships, planes, etc. While they surely would work against an individual enemy soldier, that would be considered a “waste of ammo” (like if I’d ever fired an M-1’s main cannon at a single person; it’s doable, but gross overkill).
The .50 Cal rifle would certainly give any civilian vehicle pause (Hell, it’d royally screw up a HUMMER), and is gross overkill against any person, and totally unsuited to any North American game short of a Polar Bear. Having said that, as long as it’s not a machinegun, I see no reason to ban it based upon what some people may believe to be reasons of “National Security,” that is, that terrorists may purchase them and use them domestically.
Terrorists can purchase a lot of things, quite legally, and cause far more damage than a single-shot, semi-auto rifle, regardless of it’s caliber. It wouldn’t even take a .50 cal to bring down an airplane. One of my favorite spots to spend some time is on the Lambert St. Louis Airport frontage road, and watch airplanes take-off and land directly over my head. I could, were I inclined (I’m NOT), seriously damage an airplane with much smaller weapons than a .50 cal.
True enough; the sunset provision having been successfully exercised kind of undermines mine (and other’s) “not an inch” attitude. The “Assault Weapons” were never used much in crimes; the BATF testified before Congress (in 1986, IIRC) that of the guns used in crime, the Assault Weapon category came in at less than 2%. Which made lots of people scratch their heads in wonder at what the proponents were really trying to accomplish. Hell, if they’d have pushed for a handgun ban, there’d have been a lot more logic behind their position (the handgun by far being the favored weapon of wrongdoers).
The NRA has plenty of faults, to those familiar with the organization (like me, a Life Member), but they also have a lot of good qualities. Their primary function is shooter and hunter education in firearms safety, and promoting the shooting sports and responsible hunting, and land and wildlife management.
Our political functions have, of necessity, become much more active and visible recently than throughout our history, but since, as I stated earlier, there has been numerous legislators who have advocated the “incremental ban” approach to total civilian disarmament, we can hardly be labeled as “paranoid” (reactionary, maybe)
I dunno. Do you feel any different? Feel the need to go out and buy a camouflage hunting outfit, drink some beer, and bitch about Sarah Brady and taxes?
Seriously, the situation is complicated, and fluid. Your stance is probably not altogether too different than what a lot of people I talk to (IRL) feel: something should be done, but nobody’s quite sure exactly what, except that they don’t want to ban handguns or most other firearms.
I’ve often espoused the opinion that, were Congress trustworthy, a national Firearm license (after completing a minimum firearm safety course), and a national registry would probably be a decent idea in cutting down accidents (already quite small), reduce or prevent firearm thefts (a major problem), and aid police in tracking criminals and the criminal flow of illegal firearms.
I simply cannot trust Congress not to take that and turn it into New York, or England.
And that is really the crux of the problem.
The system won’t really enforce all the laws we already have and which would do the job if they were enforced.
Teh lawmakers are not trustworthy.
So here we sit arguing amongst ourselves and not really doing anything.
Americans are queer for guns.
There’s just no getting around it, it’s the elephant squatting on the crushed coffee table in the living room, fulsome blasts of peanut scented pachyfart….
Understand, I mean no insult to our bent brethren and sistren, at least their focus is on other people, a reasonable enough target for erotic obsession, I use the term “queer” advisedly. And I don’t mean some sort of penile reference, Freud said sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, but a gun is never just a chunk of carefully milled metal. Who owns more than one lawnmower, who buys a pair of pliers if he already has one in good repair?
Blindfold an American guy, lead him into a room and remove the blindfold. A table before him, with weapons: a samarai sword, a dagger, a bludgeon, nun-chucks, brass knuckles……and a pistol. He reaches for the pistol, can’t help himself, wants to hold it, sight down its barrel. Hell, you had a Jedi light saber on the table, he’s still reach for the gun!
I know entirely harmless men, wouldn’t hurt a soul, never have, never will. Put an Army Colt .45 in their hand, they know where the button is that releases the clip, they know how to work the slide enough to be sure the gun is unloaded, but not embarrassingly hang up the slide on an empty magazine, they know that the safety is located in the butt. Even if they’d never held one before in their lives! Osmosis, the diffusion of information across a semi-permeable ignorance. Our culture is soaked with gun.
Open your local daily newspaper, go to the page where they advertise the movies. Have you ever seen that page without at least three pictures of somebody brandishing a gun?
What the fuck is it? Is it our Western heritage? But that’s bollocks, and everybody knows it! Those guys didn’t burden themselves with five pounds of metal chafing their hips, on the off chance that Lee Marvin or Jack Palance will challenge them, that would be stupid! Not in Deadwood, not Dodge City, nor the legendary Waco. You don’t carry a hammer because you might encounter a nail!
Americans are queer for guns, that’s why these discussions always turn sullen and mean. We can talk about drunk driving, talk about rock climbing without ropes, or discuss whether bullfighting is artistic and existential or just brute cruelty to an innocent beast. But talk about guns rationally? No chance.
Self defense? Really? Those guys with six or seven guns, drop them to live in an Amish community, without a realistic threat in a hundred square miles, think they’ll look at those guns and say “Heck, don’t need these anymore, I’ll sell them off and get me a satellite dish or a kerosene powered modem.” No way.
Is this a common trait? Don’t know, don’t think so. Japanese sure don’t seem to have this obsession, something like half a dozen people get shot there per year, and they are most assuredly not a non-violent bunch. Polite, yes, wussies, no. (Also don’t seem to have any lawyers, but I don’t think that means anything…)
Nope. Americans are queer for guns, we want to hold them, feel them, touch them, guys clean guns they haven’t even fired!
Which is why gun control is doomed, even if the NRA didn’t exist today, they would exist by noon tomorrow, with a couple million charter members. There is no chance that we will eliminate guns from our culture until we shit them out of our souls.
Lord help us, Americans are queer for guns. And I haven’t the slightest idea what we can do about that.
Cite, Lucy, you moronic twit? I’d go for the dagger. I like daggers.
Oh, and psst. The safety is not in the butt of the pistol. The butt is where the clip ejects from. The safety tends to be slighty behind the trigger. Except on certain Glocks, where it is inside the grip.
I’d go for the sword. Swords are cool and you can do the totally awesome ninja “flip out” and stuff. They’re also good if you get attacked by pirates. 
Maybe I’d carry 6 or 7 swords just in case I’m challenged by the McLeod boys or Zorro