board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Use of deadly force to protect property

Post Reply   Page 10 of 11  [ 218 posts ]
Jump to page « 17 8 9 10 11 »
Author Message
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 5:19 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
Quote:
The only solid correlation is that countries with a more enlightened attitude towards self defense do not become totalitarian
Er, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Colombia, Civil War Spain, Iran, Guatamala, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sierra Leone...........
You might want to strike off that list any country where the population is armed in general because the population is embroiled in civil war in general. Cause and effect, not effect and cause.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 5:22 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Estel wrote:
Add on to that, in a country like America where handguns are legal and fairly common, I actually think that classes on basic gun safety should be offered in school. That way, if a kid ever comes across a gun without parental supervision, they, at least, won't be stupid. Whether or not that class on gun safety includes a day or two at a gun range would be up to the parent. Same sort of permission slip thing we had to get when I was learning sex ed in 5th and 6th grade.
And I think every child in the world should be taught the basics of how to fall properly without hurting themselves as is done in Judo. And how to meditate, as well.

Everyone has different important things they think everyone else should know. Not everyone shares those beliefs.

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 5:39 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21757
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
Estel wrote:
Add on to that, in a country like America where handguns are legal and fairly common, I actually think that classes on basic gun safety should be offered in school. That way, if a kid ever comes across a gun without parental supervision, they, at least, won't be stupid. Whether or not that class on gun safety includes a day or two at a gun range would be up to the parent. Same sort of permission slip thing we had to get when I was learning sex ed in 5th and 6th grade.
Actually, I think that's a good idea. I know the NRA has safety classes and programs already. I do not know how well-incorporated they are into the public schools. I could see that being part of a health class or something, as part of the larger lesson on general safety (water safety, stranger safety, etc.).


Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 7:10 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
So basically you are saying the reason the only people you will grant guns to are allowed it for no reason at all. And that assumes that people in the late 18th century used the early 21st century definition of militia, which they didn't.
Please don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that criminals shouldn't be allowed to own handguns. I thought I made that extremely clear, and yet still you try to twist my words.
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
I enjoyed your list of restrictions. You want to make sure that those who you will deign to grant the privilege of gun ownership are not able to actually use the guns you are so generous in allowing them to own. On the other hand, a sensible attitue towards gun ownership that includes training is acceptable.
Again, the only restrictions on who could own a handgun under what I said are people who are not criminals or people who don't have a history of being violently mentally ill.

Do you think that people should just be able to own a gun without having to take classes on how to use it safely?
Do you think people should be able to just leave a gun lying around a house if there are children living there?

To me, it seems that you are confusing a high standard of responsibility with restrictions.

I don't have a problem with people being able to own or carry handguns. What I do have a problem with is people being allowed to own handguns with before a background check, without having had lessons on how to safely use the handgun, without having lessons on how to safely store the gun and being able to carry a gun concealed.

I have no problem whatsoever with people who own rifles for hunting.

A handgun is meant to kill people. Considering I have never been able to be in a room with a handgun without feeling sick, and the one time I actually held a handgun, I threw up, I would say that I am pretty damned logical about the whole thing.

You debate this with people who think guns should be completely illegal.

I never realized that you would debate there any restrictions or standards of responsibility in ownership whatsoever.

This isn't like freedom of speech, where if someone says something mean, only feelings get hurt, or morals offended.

These are weapons meant for killing other humans where if someone does something mean or stupid with one, people get injured or killed.

No matter what arguments, logic, false logic, or propoganda is used, that doesn't change the fact that when you own a gun you own something that gives you the power of life and death.

So yes, when I vote for a government that gives random citizens the power of life and death over me when I walk down the street, I want there to be standards of who can own those guns. I want there to be standards of training that those owners must go through.

You can have your freedom to own a gun, but I want to have my freedom not to have be afraid of you because of that ownership.


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 7:21 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Estel wrote:
A handgun is meant to kill people.
They are also used for the sport of target shooting. I've expended many hundreds of rounds of pistol ammunition in college, simply because I was a member of the "Rifle and Pistol Club". And I've never shot a person. Or an animal for that matter. :scratch:
Estel wrote:
So yes, when I vote for a government that gives random citizens the power of life and death over me when I walk down the street, I want there to be standards of who can own those guns.

There are an awful lot of things that can kill one randomly on the street. It's best to stay away from streets altogether...

;)

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 7:46 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
They are also used for the sport of target shooting.
A small, small subset of them are, generally .22s and other small-caliber pistols. Serious target pistols are very specialized and unsuitable for general use.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 8:37 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Estel wrote:
A handgun is meant to kill people.
No. A handgun is meant to kill. The intent to kill a person resides in the shooter, unlike those who
Estel wrote:
Considering I have never been able to be in a room with a handgun without feeling sick, and the one time I actually held a handgun, I threw up, I would say that I am pretty damned logical about the whole thing.
Brilliant. You say your own irrational phobia makes you the most logical person to discuss the topic. It is like insisting that an agoraphobic should be the logical person with which to discuss wide open spaces, or a xenophobic is the logical person with which to discuss foreigners, or an acrophobic is the logical person with which to discuss heights. Exactly like it. Completely like it. Yes, it really is like it. You have hoplophobia. That makes you the least logical person with which to discuss this topic.
Estel wrote:
You debate this with people who think guns should be completely illegal.
And with those who think they should be legal but inaccessable.
Estel wrote:
These are weapons meant for killing other humans where if someone does something mean or stupid with one, people get injured or killed.
The word "human" lies in the intent of the shooter. They are meant to kill, but they could be meant to kill a deer or a duck just as logically easily since the object they are meant to kill lies entirely in the intent of the shooter.
Estel wrote:
No matter what arguments, logic, false logic, or propoganda is used, that doesn't change the fact that when you own a gun you own something that gives you the power of life and death.
And you think that the only target of a gun is a human, and that's not logical.
Estel wrote:
You can have your freedom to own a gun, but I want to have my freedom not to have be afraid of you because of that ownership.
You shouldn't be afraid of my legal gun ownership - it's one of the reasons it IS safe for you to walk down the street.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Crucifer
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 8:58 pm
A song outlasts a dynasty.
Offline
 
Posts: 3202
Joined: Tue 29 May , 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Wouldn't you like to know...
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
You shouldn't be afraid of my legal gun ownership - it's one of the reasons it IS safe for you to walk down the street.
OK, I've been reading this with interest, but not contributing. I have to but in here though.

I don;t understand. How does the fact that another person on the street has a gun on their person make it safer for me (or Estel) to walk down the street? What if this person is mentally unstable and decides pulling the gun and shooting people is a good idea? What if someone picks the holders pockets, or otherwise obtains the gun and decides they want to have some fun? How does this make the street safer?

_________________

Sleep is a death; Oh, make me try by sleeping what it is to die.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 9:06 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
So your specific fear is that someone might flip out all of the sudden and start shooting.

Let's deal with that.

The overwhelming supermajority of gunowners don't do that. As it turns out legal gunowners are the most law abiding group in the country. Every single group that you could use to classify people has a certain percentage that are criminals, and legal gun owners are at the absolute bottom of those comparisons.

Then there are the criminals. You have to see this through a criminal's point of view. You know that if people are allowed to own guns they will be able to shoot back. That makes crime a much riskier proposition for them. With Concealed Carry (which the hoplophobics object to for obvious reason - they are hoplophobic) the criminals no longer even know which of their potential targets are armed so they cannot say "ok I will leave that one alone and rob that one instead." That makes all crime a much riskier proposition. Enough to persuade some of them to seek easier targets.

Then there's the factor that if some criminal is actually lucky enough to pick the "safe" target, gun owners can still intervene on behalf of the victim. Of course hoplophobics think that anyone who would be willing to intervene if necessary actually are hyper-testosteroidal freaks who want to play superhero vigilante. But those of us with a more mature view of gun ownership realize that we can actually help others if necessare while also hoping it is not necessary to do so.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 9:56 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Estel wrote:
Considering I have never been able to be in a room with a handgun without feeling sick, and the one time I actually held a handgun, I threw up, I would say that I am pretty damned logical about the whole thing.
Brilliant. You say your own irrational phobia makes you the most logical person to discuss the topic. It is like insisting that an agoraphobic should be the logical person with which to discuss wide open spaces, or a xenophobic is the logical person with which to discuss foreigners, or an acrophobic is the logical person with which to discuss heights. Exactly like it. Completely like it. Yes, it really is like it. You have hoplophobia. That makes you the least logical person with which to discuss this topic.
Oh honestly :bang: !!! That is not even remotely what I said. I said that despite my feeling sick with handguns, I still manage to be logical about the whole thing. If I was being illogical I would've said no one should have any sort of gun whatsoever in any case no matter what the circumstances.


Edit:
I had a huge big post after this, but it's simply not worth it.

Have fun having the last word. :roll:


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 23 Apr , 2008 10:04 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Estel wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I don't have a problem holding rifles or guns meant for hunting. Handguns were created for use against humans. You say they aren't used that way, but then you go on and on about protection. Which is it? Is the gun for use at the range, or is it for use as protection? Both?
Guns are used to shoot. What they are meant to shoot at depends on the intenet of the shooter. The same gun can be used to shoot a human, or an animal, or a painted target, or a tin can. Handguns are not "for use against humans" any more or any less than any other gun.

They are guns, they shoot bullets. They shoot bullets at targets that could be animals, could be humans, could be painted targets, and could be tin cans. Rifles could also be used to shoot at animals or humans or painted targets or tin cans.

It depends on the intent of the shooter.

It depends on what the shooter wants to shoot at.

Because it is the shooter that determines the use of the shooters gun, and it is the shooter that determines what the gun is meant to be used against.

Whether a handgun, a rifle, a b-b-gun, or a fully automatic machine gun with armor piercing rounds, it is the shooter that determines what the gun is meant to be used against.

Please fix that part of your posts.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
PrinceAlarming
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 12:24 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun 07 Sep , 2008 5:50 pm
Location: The Colonies
Contact: Website
 
I shoot.

I have no problems with guns.

If this man had used a hunting bow, would we be having the same debate?

CG, having much experience working very closely with law enforcement agencies, I actually agree with you on many points. If guns didn't exist, for example, people would still kill people. If the most popular method of heinous violent crime was to beat someone with a baseball bat, would we debate ownership of sports equipment?

People whose exposure to firearms is limited to news and movies have no idea how a well placed round can save many lives. They have a right to fear what guns can do. Although I subscribe to the idea that a true warrior always finds a way not to fight, or kill for that matter, I would gladly have put some lead in the Columbine killers before they had a chance to put some lead in anyone else...

If it came to that...

They still make swords, people. Real, people slicing, people killing swords. Does anyone know of any sword ranges where I can sharpen my skills with a katana or dagger?

Although I question the man who shot the two invaders and his motives (they were trying to get away, and not trying to kill anyone) his decision as a land owner and neighbor are his decisions. As far as I know, in Massachusetts, you have the right to use deadly force if an invader is in your house. As soon as he steps outside, the law does not cover you. I would not, however, shoot someone if he were running away with my stereo. If I had the time to lock and cock a 12 gauge, I probably could have just gotten a description, the vehicle plate number, and called it in.

Estel, I look forward to the day when pistols are not connected with violence. Handguns were primarily used as tools of war; temporary backups when your enemy was at close range and your positions had been over run. Muskets take time to load, a revolver typically had six shots you could fire in rapid succession.

Another interesting tidbit of information; the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun, famous for being held by Chicago's deadliest mobsters, was initially marketed to Midwest farmers for protection against wolves...

A fear of something so powerful and deadly, while understandable, is irrational; most fears are. Fear stems from ignorance. If one takes time to understand something, fear can turn into respect. My advice: go to a firearms safety course. Learn to use a Glock and see that a good marksman needs more than a trigger finger. Maybe then you'll understand why so many innocent bystanders are hit in gang related shootings. Holding that thing sideways like in the movies doesn't work for shit.

I think we should train gang-bangers so that they actually hit their targets and not some poor little girl playing on the floor of her porch.

I prefer hitting the range with my friend's M1 Garand, an American rifle from WWII. The design and engineering are near perfect, and firing it is like meditation. Your breathing must be controlled. A moment of zen is achieved when you're prone, perfectly in tune to your tool, hitting the sweet spot consistently from 100 yards...

I do not own, but I enjoy, I partake, and I respect.


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 3:17 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
I have to say my earlier claim in this thread of never having killed anything with a gun is now invalid. When one of my cats got run over and was lying there broken- panting in severe pain, and the vet was a 30 minute drive away, I shot her in the head with a .22 mag rifle. :bawl:

It was very traumatic.

Actually, the decision was traumatic. The deed was surprisingly easy once I made up my mind not to put her through the journey to the vet's office.

She died instantly, by the way. Probably never knew what hit her.

I don't know how much euthanasia of pets is going to count against me, karmawise. :( It seems like murder is murder, no matter how well intentioned one is.

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jude
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 3:20 pm
Aspiring to heresy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 19653
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Canada
 
I'm not so sure, Maria - your only intention was to spare her further pain.

I think if I were in her situation, I would have preferred a quick death from a bullet rather than a painful journey to the vet with the same result anyway.

Not sure if this helps at all :neutral:

_________________

[ img ]

Melkor and Ungoliant in need of some relationship counselling.


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 3:47 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
MariaHobbit wrote:
I have to say my earlier claim in this thread of never having killed anything with a gun is now invalid. When one of my cats got run over and was lying there broken- panting in severe pain, and the vet was a 30 minute drive away, I shot her in the head with a .22 mag rifle. :bawl:

It was very traumatic.

Actually, the decision was traumatic. The deed was surprisingly easy once I made up my mind not to put her through the journey to the vet's office.

She died instantly, by the way. Probably never knew what hit her.

I don't know how much euthanasia of pets is going to count against me, karmawise. :( It seems like murder is murder, no matter how well intentioned one is.
Having shot an animal before during hunting season, for meat to feed the family, I can understand.

I killed a mouse once, it freaked me out for a while. By kill a mouse I wacked it with a shovel and killed it. I have also trapped them. But the actual killing with the shovel freaked me out more than putting the traps out and picking up the dead rodents. I have a hard time killing any animals, or other things, including spiders. Most times I leave even black widows alone, there are occasions I will kill them, but mostly no.

I have a friend who is Nam vet and he killed one person while in Nam. He said he would never do it again, but also has said that a person can never say they will ever kill another human, because you can never tell what you will do in the situation. However, he said he would never do it again.

My ex-F-i-L was a WWII vet, stationed in the Pacific. He ended up killing a Japanese soilder with his bayonet because his gun would not fire. It freaked him out for the rest of his life, he had nightmares about it. Of course he also had survived Pearl Harbor and his ship the USS Helena being sunk. He was 16 when he elisted with falsified papers and about 18 or 19 when he killed the Japanese man. The PSTD affected him the rest of his life, he ended up committing suicide after his wife died. So I don't know if justified killing is any easier on the person doing it as opposed to random killing.

All I know is my friend Paul, the Nam vet, very seldom talks about his experience with killing another person, except to say to avoid it if at all possible, and that it's not something anybody wants to live with regardless of what it's for. He also says if driven to the point of killing another human, anyone is capible of it.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 4:40 pm
 
 
Very few people who served in Vietnam talk about it. Officers involved in shootings seldom if ever talk about it. There should never be pride involved when a human life is taken.

I've witnessed death through violent and non-violent means, through suicide, and through accidents it's never pretty and will leave a mark with those who have witnessed it. If it doesn't affect the person then there is likely something wrong with that person.

freddy


Top
Quote
PrinceAlarming
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 4:56 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun 07 Sep , 2008 5:50 pm
Location: The Colonies
Contact: Website
 
Feredir wrote:
Very few people who served in Vietnam talk about it. Officers involved in shootings seldom if ever talk about it. There should never be pride involved when a human life is taken.
I have noticed that people who have been heavily involved in combat rarely initiate any type of conversation about their experiences. I think bragging about taking life, whether in self defense or under orders or in defense of another, is questionable.

Taking a life for any reason, even good ones, is not a bragging right. I would be very concerned if my friends in Iraq came back high-fiving everyone and displaying pictures of their victims...

Although, there are people like that...

And it makes me sick...

My friends and acquaintances and coworkers who did come back alive tend to remain rather silent on the subject. One, when I asked him about it, only said that he wasn't yet, "at peace with what had happened." Another very good friend and 4 year ambulance partner of mine put things in to perspective when he talked about getting orders, not liking orders, objecting to the mission, and how all of the aforementioned means squat when you see muzzle-flashes from the other side.

Watch the interviews with veterans of the WWII airborne in "Band of Brothers". Still very, very hard for them to talk about.

Prolonging an inevitable and painful end is worse than taking that life, in my opinion. Hunting provides a means, unless all you are doing is decapitating the animal and putting the head on your wall. That, too, is bragging about a life taken.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 5:06 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Empty barrels make the most noise.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Feredir
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 5:10 pm
 
 
PrinceAlarming wrote:

Taking a life for any reason, even good ones, is not a bragging right. I would be very concerned if my friends in Iraq came back high-fiving everyone and displaying pictures of their victims...

This is merely wording and I understand that, but there is never a "good" reason to take a human life. There may be proper reasons or justified reasons, there are never good reasons. I refuse to use the term "it was a good shoot" that is often used in law enforcement. It is never a good thing, justifiable, but not good.

As far as putting an animal head on the wall, I agree that if the only reason one does that is for bragging then it's wrong. I have one on my wall but the meat fed my family for many months. Why is it on my wall? Because he is a beautiful example of a whitetail deer.

Understand also that the meat from the safaris feed an entire village and nothing goes to waste. It's not for me though.

freddy


Top
Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 08 Sep , 2008 5:32 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Yikes, I can't help but ask Freddy, what you think of the Alaska Wolf/Bear shoot from helicopters law that Palin passed?

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 10 of 11  [ 218 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 17 8 9 10 11 »
Jump to: