http://www.r6-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27660
Awesome sauce.
F*cking badass.
Bike thieves all need to burn in hell for ever and ever. My friends SV 1000 was stolen about a month ago, and his R1 last Nov. :2guns:
Nice to see those guys got their ass's kicked for trying. I love MMA!
i wont feel sorry for the peson that trys that at my place.
16 dogs
12 gauge
and a 9mm
yea thats right 16 dogs, although there chiken shaZam!, they do let you know something going on
810 super magnum, 3 inch shell to the leg would be my preferable solution.
not to the chest, not to the face.
The leg.
put your guns away boys, no ones gonna steal your gs500.
my anti theft device is parking beside sport bikes. no ones gonna steal a gs500 when theres a gixxer right beside it.
yea, there's usually a 954rr next to my bike.
yea its still worth money and if some one steals a pos 35$ undash cd player out of a 89 civic then they will steal the gs
Quote from: rangerbrown on June 13, 2006, 09:11:51 PM
yea its still worth money and if some one steals a pos 35$ undash cd player out of a 89 civic then they will steal the gs
:laugh: I had a $20 walmart cassette player stereo stolen out of my 1986 Dodge Colt hatchback...and that was in 1997. :laugh:
I would pity the assh*le that trys to steal my bike from my house. :mad:
I'm an avid shooter. Let them try.
With my pistol at 30 yards I can pick which side of the head I want.
With my rifle I can choose a cheek at 140 yards.
My bike is parked 5 yards from my head, I sleep very lightly and my complex is gated. (Also my GS iparked in front of my 1979 Buick, and you CANNOT get at the GS until the Buick moves back.)
Also I have two 3/4" steel cables, one through the wheel and frame, the other through the Buick.
Try it. See how well my anger management classes worked.
OK anger rant over. But seriously, don't touch my bike.
Ha, that's awesome!!! My bike was parked in my apartment complex lot for years...lucky nobody really messed with it. My stuff is now locked in my big detached garage with barred windows and multiple bolt locks in the roll up door (no electronic opener either). Plus, the garage is behind a fence and I have an 80 lb. Australian Shepherd on patrol! Anybody willing to go through the trouble of getting through that for a GS500 can have it!!
Quote from: CirclesCenter on June 14, 2006, 12:40:19 AM
I'm an avid shooter. Let them try.
With my pistol at 30 yards I can pick which side of the head I want.
With my rifle I can choose a cheek at 140 yards.
My bike is parked 5 yards from my head, I sleep very lightly and my complex is gated. (Also my GS iparked in front of my 1979 Buick, and you CANNOT get at the GS until the Buick moves back.)
Also I have two 3/4" steel cables, one through the wheel and frame, the other through the Buick.
Try it. See how well my anger management classes worked.
OK anger rant over. But seriously, don't touch my bike.
lol, i like your thinking
hey thanks for reminding me, I need to stop by the police station and jump through a few hoops when I out of work early on friday to get a permit to purchase a pistol so I can finally get that walther I've been drooling over
This story is badass!
Eeek, people having guns just scares a good little Canadian like me.
If somebody takes my bike, I'll be sad, but that's why it's insured. I'm not going to risk getting into a shooting match over a replacable machine.
Quote from: GS Jenn on June 14, 2006, 03:30:40 PM
Eeek, people having guns just scares a good little Canadian like me.
If somebody takes my bike, I'll be sad, but that's why it's insured. I'm not going to risk getting into a shooting match over a replacable machine.
^ Ohh so THAT is why canadian's have a stereotype for being more sensible than Americans. Because it is true :thumb:
"He fell, Officer. Yeah, that's it! He fell!" :icon_twisted: :laugh: :laugh:
:thumb:
Quote from: LimaXray on June 14, 2006, 07:18:29 AM
hey thanks for reminding me, I need to stop by the police station and jump through a few hoops when I out of work early on friday to get a permit to purchase a pistol so I can finally get that walther I've been drooling over
i dont believe you need to do that. just go to your local ffl dealer, (most pawn shops, gun stores etc) and if you pass the backround check. every state has this) then you can buy the gun :thumb:
Quote from: TragicImage on June 13, 2006, 06:38:25 PM
http://www.r6-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27660
Awesome sauce.
3 bike thieves = PWNED :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
Quote from: Phaedrus on June 14, 2006, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: GS Jenn on June 14, 2006, 03:30:40 PM
Eeek, people having guns just scares a good little Canadian like me.
If somebody takes my bike, I'll be sad, but that's why it's insured. I'm not going to risk getting into a shooting match over a replacable machine.
^ Ohh so THAT is why canadian's have a stereotype for being more sensible than Americans. Because it is true :thumb:
"I don't want to own a gun to protect myself. I'd rather be victimized." That's sensible?
No offense Jenn, I know plenty of people who don't own guns, and who think guns should not be legal for private ownership. I know it seems like I'm poking fun at you, but I'm not (more like poking fun at Canada in general.. my roommate's canadian, we have fun picking on each others' countries... lucky for me, he doesn't know anything about Korea... neither do I!)
Sorry to threadjack. I just had to point out Phae's logical fallacy. And make an ass of myself at the same time. That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled postwhor.... Err... Programming..
You need a permit to buy a handgun in Jersey.
Quote from: rangerbrown on June 13, 2006, 07:54:20 PM
i wont feel sorry for the peson that trys that at my place.
16 dogs
12 gauge
and a 9mm
yea thats right 16 dogs, although there chiken shaZam!, they do let you know something going on
I don't think they would even think about robbin the dog pound
Quote from: NiceGuysFinishLast on June 14, 2006, 08:08:26 PM
Quote from: Phaedrus on June 14, 2006, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: GS Jenn on June 14, 2006, 03:30:40 PM
Eeek, people having guns just scares a good little Canadian like me.
If somebody takes my bike, I'll be sad, but that's why it's insured. I'm not going to risk getting into a shooting match over a replacable machine.
^ Ohh so THAT is why canadian's have a stereotype for being more sensible than Americans. Because it is true :thumb:
"I don't want to own a gun to protect myself. I'd rather be victimized." That's sensible?
No offense Jenn, I know plenty of people who don't own guns, and who think guns should not be legal for private ownership. I know it seems like I'm poking fun at you, but I'm not (more like poking fun at Canada in general.. my roommate's canadian, we have fun picking on each others' countries... lucky for me, he doesn't know anything about Korea... neither do I!)
Sorry to threadjack. I just had to point out Phae's logical fallacy. And make an ass of myself at the same time. That is all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled postwhor.... Err... Programming..
Not that I'm anti-gun or anything, but killing someone over a motorcycle isn't so sensible either.
I would give the guy a few beers and just pray that he totals it or whatever. Call State Farm in the morning and have a new Z-1000 in a week. Doesn't make for as good a story, but hey I'm a lover not a fighter. :dunno_white:
Quote from: NiceGuysFinishLast on June 14, 2006, 08:08:26 PM
"I don't want to own a gun to protect myself. I'd rather be victimized." That's sensible?
And the statistic that the NRA conveniently ignores says that a handgun in the house is more likely to harm someone in the household than a burglar. A friend of mine had his son blow his head off while my friend was downstairs watching TV. How sfe did he feel then?
I don't have a gun and I'm proud not to. Maybe I don't have enought testosterone (or maybe I have enough that I don't feel a need to own a gun or a Corvette). But I do have a GS...
I think of owning a gun and owning a motorcycle as similar: both can be deadly, and it's important to have proper training before using either.
<---- The only thing she's ever aimed successfully is a Glock 8MM. :thumb:
I don't think protecting one's property is a bad thing. If someone is trespassing on one's property, then they're obviously up to no good. Who knows whether the intent of the trespass is for purposes of stealing, killing, raping....? :dunno_white:
Vote to make California an open-carry state!!!!! ;)
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 14, 2006, 08:33:20 PMA friend of mine had his son blow his head off while my friend was downstairs watching TV. How sfe did he feel then?
And how did the child get to the weapon if it was properly stored?
Quote from: pandy on June 14, 2006, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 14, 2006, 08:33:20 PMA friend of mine had his son blow his head off while my friend was downstairs watching TV. How sfe did he feel then?
And how did the child get to the weapon if it was properly stored?
shhhhh.... we dont' wanna take responsiblity... just blame the people who make the gun... it makes it better that way.
Quote from: aaronstj on June 14, 2006, 08:09:32 PM
You need a permit to buy a handgun in Jersey.
to buy or to carry? if to buy wtf? every buyer in every state has that yellow form they HAVE to fill out. cept when buying from individuals :dunno_white:
i don't agree with owning a gun to protect your property, if you kill someone then you have to live with that for the rest of your life. How bad are you going to feel if you shot and killed a 17 year old kid who was trying to steal your motorcycle. Everyone from this position now could say die sucka he tried to steal your bike but when you find he wasn't such a bad kid really it was a once off and youve taken a son from someones family will you be able to live with yourself? over a motorcycle?
This argument has come up here in England, people wanted the right to defend their own house from burglers yet they were getting prison sentances because the burgler was ABH and GBH against the house owner for hitting them with a cricket bat or woteva while they were trying to steal their TV wtf is up wid that burgler shouldn't have been there in the first place. But anywhos, IF someone has broken into my house i would defend my family and scare a burgler away even if it did mean hitting them with a bat or whatever. But i wouldn't be able to beat them to death and do the same as if you shot a burgler in your house. An MP here was recently broken into and thus began a campeign (as with all politicians something only gets done when theyve experienced it) to legalize the ownership of Tazers by home owners. I definatly agree with this. You can imobalise someone without killing them or causing lasting damage in 99% of cases, you have defend yourself without killing or seriously harming someone else and you don't put yourself on the line for prosecution for murder or some other charge. I totally agree with defending your property and i think this is the way forward opposed to lethal force.
one of the worst things about NJ is its strictness on gun laws... before you can so much as buy a rifle or shotgun, you need to go to the police station, pay them a whole lot of money, get finger printed, background checked, and wait 3+ months. Every time you want to buy a pistol, you have to go and pay them ~$15 to get a permit to purchase. During all that I know I will NEVER be able to carry my pistol anywhere outside of my house in the state of NJ unless I decide to be a cop. This is even when the FBI claims EVERY year states and areas with carry concealed laws have consistantly lower violent crime rates then those who don't.
Most people who are against guns just don't understand them and are afraid of them. It's on the same line as many cagers out there think they should ban motorcycles because they don't understand them and only see the bad in them.
This (http://www.zenithboosters.com/george.htm) is one of the best articles I've read in a long time about the matter. I'd highly recommend reading it, especially to the ladies out there.
Quote from: pandy on June 14, 2006, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 14, 2006, 08:33:20 PMA friend of mine had his son blow his head off while my friend was downstairs watching TV. How sfe did he feel then?
And how did the child get to the weapon if it was properly stored?
The child was a young adult. 20 or 21 years old.
And how many guns are "properly" stored? I know of
one person (even in a "gun state" like Oklahoma where I live) who has a gun vault or trigger locks and keeps them locked. Even then, the location of the key is known to the occupants of the home.
I'm not a "gun-blamer." And I certainly believe in the second amendment. I'm just saying that the old west notion of "protecting your wife and family" with a gun is pure BS. The gun is statistically more likely to harm someone in the home than be used to stop an intruder. That's a risk I'm not taking.
Why is it harder to get a driver's license than a concealed carry permit in most states that have them? And do I feel safer in Oklahoma knowing that half the rednecks here have permits? I've seen how some of them treat their children, their wives, and their animals....yet I should feel good that they can carry a gun and be expected to make rational split-second decisions about whom and when to shoot? Yeah, right.
Invest in locks, not guns, to protect your property. And then buy insurance.
Quote from: Kasumi on June 15, 2006, 03:42:40 AM
But anywhos, IF someone has broken into my house i would defend my family and scare a burgler away even if it did mean hitting them with a bat or whatever.
And when the perp comes at you with a gun, are you still going to scare them away? Or are you going to be beaten, robbed, and possibly murdered?
Quote from: Kasumi on June 15, 2006, 03:42:40 AM
But i wouldn't be able to beat them to death and do the same as if you shot a burgler in your house. An MP here was recently broken into and thus began a campeign (as with all politicians something only gets done when theyve experienced it) to legalize the ownership of Tazers by home owners. I definatly agree with this. You can imobalise someone without killing them or causing lasting damage in 99% of cases, you have defend yourself without killing or seriously harming someone else and you don't put yourself on the line for prosecution for murder or some other charge. I totally agree with defending your property and i think this is the way forward opposed to lethal force.
If it's a choice between me killing them or them raping me, harming my family, or taking what's mine, they're dead. :)
Quote from: LimaXray on June 15, 2006, 06:01:07 AM
Most people who are against guns just don't understand them and are afraid of them. It's on the same line as many cagers out there think they should ban motorcycles because they don't understand them and only see the bad in them. This (http://www.zenithboosters.com/george.htm) is one of the best articles I've read in a long time about the matter. I'd highly recommend reading it, especially to the ladies out there.
Agreed. Most who are against motorcycles don't own them; most who are against guns don't own them. Thanks for the article!
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 15, 2006, 06:05:08 AM
The child was a young adult. 20 or 21 years old.
This "child" was old enough to know better than to play with guns. Whose fault was this? The gun's?
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 15, 2006, 06:05:08 AM
I'm just saying that the old west notion of "protecting your wife and family" with a gun is pure BS. The gun is statistically more likely to harm someone in the home than be used to stop an intruder. That's a risk I'm not taking.
People are also statistically more likely to be stupid than be a rocket scientist. I think that *most* who are against guns blame the gun (and I'm not saying this is you). It's not the fault of the slimy criminal who carries the gun, and it's not the irresponsible parent who doesn't lock up the gun; it's the evil gun's fault!
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 15, 2006, 06:05:08 AM
Why is it harder to get a driver's license than a concealed carry permit in most states that have them?
I agree that there should be rigorous procedures in place for issuing permits. However, don't forget, you don't need a permit to have a child, either. Why? Too many people that I've known in my lifetime should have been sterilized. :flipoff:
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 15, 2006, 06:05:08 AM
Yeah, right. Invest in locks, not guns, to protect your property. And then buy insurance.
Locks don't work. How many bikes do we hear about that are stolen that have disk locks and alarms and tinkerbell watching over them. If locks worked, then we wouldn't have entire columns in newspapers dedicated to the crime sprees of moron thieves.
I do believe that if a thief thinks they could be shot, then they'll be less likely to take what's not theirs, to break into houses, and to commit crimes against innocent people. That's just my humble opinion, and I *do* respect the opinions of those who disagree with me, even as I disagree with their opinions. :thumb:
Beating the stuffing out of a burgler would make me feel totally at peace with the world.
Here in Australia uns require licenses. And you must show a good reason to have one, such as being in a shooters club, or a farmer.
Random checks are also put in place to license holders by officers to ensure guns are locked up.
Here, all semi automatic guns are banned (after a big masacre in Tasmania).
Since having a big gun amnesty, gun crimes and deaths have reduced dramatically. The thing is, crims will get guns either way (banned or not). But the last thing yu want to do is arm a population to get in gun battles with derranged, desperate or drugged up crims.
I like Australia's stance, and don't believe mums and dads need guns. :2guns:
I agree with you Galahs, sounds like a very sensible stance. I am guessing a lot fewer people get killed during burglaries in Australia than in the United States.
You have it exactly right, average joe homeowner having a gun just escalates the level of violence.
A Canadian statistic that I found of interest: the Canadian province with the most guns per capita (Alberta, where I live) also has the highest rate of spousal murder. To me this is another good reason not have guns lying around. If a man gets violent with his partner she has a much better chance of surviving if there isn't a gun in the nightstand.
By the way my partner is ex-Canadian army, well training in using guns, and a recreational shooter. But we don't have any firearms in our home. You can be knowledgeable about guns and still not believe that they should be in the home.
If anyone enters my home, without my permission (regardless to why) and I feel threatened enough to shoot him....Then why should I feel guilty?
Those of you worried about guilt, I bet, have never lost someone through your own inaction.
A burglar is a criminal..albiet not a crime that warrants a death penalty...... If you catch an intruder in your home, at that moment of realization that you or your family is in danger....you have no clue what this guys intentions are. burglary? murder?rape? maybe he wants some alone time with your 10yr old daughter?
how long you gonna wait and see?
Unless he is trying to get out of the house and can do so without going near you or your family......If you have a gun...BLAST him. and be sure to aim center mass...dead guys can't sue.
---------
The right to BARE ARMS is the right to protect yourself. Laws banning weapons take weapons away from law abiding people.
Criminal will be able to get weapons no matter what.
A household firearm accident is always 100% avoidable. Just cause some jackass let there kid get hurt, don't mean you should remove my right to responsible protect myself.
Where I live, you can care a concealed gun if you have a permit. They don't let bad people get permits. In every state where they have conceal and carry, the crime rate has gone down. So only good people have legally concealed weapons. In my City of 450,000, last year 135 people were murdered, plus or minus. I'd wager that none of them were killed while breaking into a home to rob someone. One guy did get beat up when he broke into a home, that I recall. Usually those people are murdered in robberies, drive by shootings, or because they really pissed somebody off.
But I agree: if somebody came into my home with bad intentions, they better cup their balls, because they are going to be deader than fried chicken.
I'll deal with the remorse rom that, but I sure won't have to deal with the regret of having not acted and let something bad happen to me or a loved one.
Quote from: GS Jenn on June 15, 2006, 08:22:42 AM
I agree with you Galahs, sounds like a very sensible stance. I am guessing a lot fewer people get killed during burglaries in Australia than in the United States.
You have it exactly right, average joe homeowner having a gun just escalates the level of violence.
A Canadian statistic that I found of interest: the Canadian province with the most guns per capita (Alberta, where I live) also has the highest rate of spousal murder. To me this is another good reason not have guns lying around. If a man gets violent with his partner she has a much better chance of surviving if there isn't a gun in the nightstand.
By the way my partner is ex-Canadian army, well training in using guns, and a recreational shooter. But we don't have any firearms in our home. You can be knowledgeable about guns and still not believe that they should be in the home.
You should read that article I posted earlier. She makes a couple points that apply here. One is that in Canada and Britain where guns are heavily regulated there are fewer gun related crimes and murders, but there are far more rapes, muggings, robberies, beatings, and other violent crimes. Also, you're making the assumtion that 'spousal murder' means the guy shot the woman. Look at it this way, we guys are for the most part violent whereas women are not, there's not changing that, it's a fact of nature. We men are also bigger and stronger. That said, does a man really need a gun to kill you? Do you honestly think most women stand a chance against a homicidal rapist or even an enraged abusive husband for that matter? I'd bet you those 'spousal murders' are more the wife shooting the husband because she got tired of having her ass beaten and decided 'tonight is the night I stand up for myself' and a gun was the only thing that could level the playing field.
edit: I should also add it's not just about the ability to not be able to protect yourself, it's more about the criminal knowing you being a good law abiding citizen do not have the ability to protect yourself and he can do as he pleases
I want to commend everyone who's posted on this subject. I think this is the most respectful exchange I've seen here, and the opinions vary to huge degrees on a hot topic like guns. :bowdown:
Thank you!!! :thumb:
Did you guys read about the burglar in San Jose, CA that broke into a house and stole a gun safe? He opened it and found a memory card with pictures of the homeowner molesting a child. The thief turned the child molester in and the thief is now facing a life sentence (third strike).
Amazing. . .
Ex-con turns in child molester suspect
A reader requested reposting this from last week:
"Risking a life term to protect a child
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Matthew Ryan Hahn glared in disbelief at the digital photographs of a man molesting a girl. She was only a year old, maybe 2.
The next thing to do would be obvious — call police. But Hahn had been convicted of burglary more than once. And the memory card on which he discovered the photos came from a stolen safe."
It was front-page news yesterday. Hahn is a serial robber, and he turned the memory card in anonymously. When he was arrested (on other crimes, I believe), he offered that he was the child's saviour in the hopes that he won't have to spend the rest of his life in prison for repeatedly robbing homes.
Kudos to him for doing the right thing in getting a fiend off the streets. But...when is he going to stop robbing people?
I have several guns. They're necessary tools here in the east Texas countryside. I don't think I would use them against a robber unless he was armed also.
-M
Quote from: pandy on June 15, 2006, 09:11:35 AM
It was front-page news yesterday. Hahn is a serial robber, and he turned the memory card in anonymously. When he was arrested (on other crimes, I believe), he offered that he was the child's saviour in the hopes that he won't have to spend the rest of his life in prison for repeatedly robbing homes.
Kudos to him for doing the right thing in getting a fiend off the streets. But...when is he going to stop robbing people?
From the sounds of it, he is pretty much done robbing people right about . . .now! :laugh: But I commend him. Of note, he has been really troubled by the photos he saw on that memory stick. He is getting counseling in jail and is actually reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" in jail (no kidding), which I thought was pretty cool.
Nobody in there right mind would turn a gun on an unarmed robber....That is a crime.
BUT..at 3am you wake up and hear noises downstairs and proceed to investigate with you 45cal. smith&wesson revolver. The intruder comes at you and you fire and kill him.
Nothing wrong with that.
Regardless of what the criminal was doing, he was wrong. A decent person would not KILL an unarmed intruder if he felt he had the situation under control.
But anyone killed while commiting a crime("while commiting" does not include "after subdued") is at fault for his own death, regardless of the facts after the initial break-in.
Burglars should be scared to enter someones home. They shouldn't be allowed to sue, on the grounds that they were committing a crime at the time.
An intruder intto my home will be killed. No if ands or buts. If necessary I have a spare .22cal revolver that is untraceable, that I can place in their cold dead hands, to placate the police.
Quote from: 3imo on June 15, 2006, 09:37:57 AM
If necessary I have a spare .22cal revolver that is untraceable...
uh, not anymore :laugh:
:2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns:
I don't really have a spare .22cal revolver that is untraceable, that I can place in their cold dead hands, to placate the police.
Thats just a figure of speech.... :icon_confused:...yeah thats it. :icon_lol:
In Texas it is legal to kill someone if they unlawfully enter your home.
hhhmmm...go figure....I was born in Central Texas. :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns:
What about in New Jersey? Where can I find that out? My boyfriend is going to going to the police academy at the end of July, which means we will most likely have a gun in our house in the near future. That is why I am asking.
I could tell you but I'll need to see some PBA cards first :icon_lol:
Quote from: 3imo on June 15, 2006, 08:32:46 AM
A household firearm accident is always 100% avoidable. Just cause some jackass let there kid get hurt, don't mean you should remove my right to responsible protect myself.
The incident I was referring to was a suicide, not an accident. Guns are very useful for that.
And I don't think for one second that "only good people" are allowed to get concealed carry permits in ANY state. Everyone has a temper (or moments of depression) and everyone has occasional lapses of judgment. Those lapses of judgment with a gun available are a little more lethal.
True. And intent can form "in the twinkling of an eye."
some kid grabs a gun and shoots himself -- solution: outlaw guns
some kid drive a crotch rocket into a van and kill 4 others -- solution: outlaw motorcycles
some guy gets drunk and drives a car through a group of kids -- solution: outlaw alcohol and cars
Some guy who legally owns a pistols, kills his wife -- solution: outlaw marriage
--------
the Idea of infringing on everyones freedom on account of an individuals lapse of judgement is Stupid. :cookoo: :cookoo: IMO o'course.
Yes, these things happen and its f%&ked up, but outlawing guns won't keep a suicidal person from killing themselves, nor will it stop a homicidal husband bent on killing his wife.
Taking Guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is wrong. We should not be punished for the crimes of others. I have the right to defend myself and my family.
anyone trying to take that right from me will have to meet me and my AR-15 at the front porch. and, OH yeah, bring back up.
Quote from: 3imo on June 15, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
I don't really have a spare .22cal revolver that is untraceable, that I can place in their cold dead hands, to placate the police. Thats just a figure of speech.... :icon_confused:...yeah thats it. :icon_lol:
And if they tried to get away, you wouldn't drag them back into the house to make sure that you're in the clear! ;) Actually, this is unofficial advice I've heard from cop(s) over the years; whether it's true or not, I have no idea.
It would be interesting to see how the statistics compare between Texas and a state that has very different gun laws.
Quote from: 3imo on June 15, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
some kid grabs a gun and shoots himself -- solution: outlaw guns
some kid drive a crotch rocket into a van and kill 4 others -- solution: outlaw motorcycles
some guy gets drunk and drives a car through a group of kids -- solution: outlaw alcohol and cars
Some guy who legally owns a pistols, kills his wife -- solution: outlaw marriage
Hey...can we get
solution: outlaw children in there somehow? :icon_lol:
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 15, 2006, 06:05:08 AM
I'm not a "gun-blamer." And I certainly believe in the second amendment. I'm just saying that the old west notion of "protecting your wife and family" with a gun is pure BS. The gun is statistically more likely to harm someone in the home than be used to stop an intruder. That's a risk I'm not taking.
Quote from: 3imo on June 15, 2006, 01:12:51 PM
some kid grabs a gun and shoots himself -- solution: outlaw guns
AND
Taking Guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is wrong. We should not be punished for the crimes of others. I have the right to defend myself and my family.
I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or not, but no one here has suggested that guns should me made unavailable because of a suicide somewhere.
I'm simply saying that if you think the world is safer because you have a gun, I'm not buying it. That gun is still more likely to cause harm to someone in YOUR household than to a criminal. I'm not making that up.
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 15, 2006, 01:45:42 PM
I'm simply saying that if you think the world is safer because you have a gun, I'm not buying it. That gun is still more likely to cause harm to someone in YOUR household than to a criminal. I'm not making that up.
However, is someone in one's own household more likely to be harmed due to the fact that the gun is simply there, or would it be due to the fact that the gun hasn't been stored properly? Would love to see stats on this breakdown!
Quote from: TragicImage on June 14, 2006, 09:53:44 PM
Quote from: pandy on June 14, 2006, 08:44:09 PM
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 14, 2006, 08:33:20 PMA friend of mine had his son blow his head off while my friend was downstairs watching TV. How sfe did he feel then?
And how did the child get to the weapon if it was properly stored?
shhhhh.... we dont' wanna take responsiblity... just blame the people who make the gun... it makes it better that way.
AMEN to that... trumpetguy, I feel for your friend. However, I'm of the opinion that if kids are properly trained, there's no risk with a gun. A. Store it somewhere they can't get it. B. TRAIN them in how to use them safely, and that guns are NOT toys, no matter how much fun they are.
I agree with you, accidents happen, and are tragic.. it's not the guns' fault.. it's the owners who don't respect the power they hold in their hands. Teach a kid not to play with it, they won't. I was taught from a fairly early age. I love guns. Not from a lack of (nor an excess of) testosterone. Just because I like to make things go "boom" and see the can jump when I'm shooting from 100 yards... Some of us see shooting as recreation.
And in response to your post egaeus, I never said that a gun would be needed in this case. Obviously, the guy did OK with just his arms. I'm a smaller guy, and even with my wrestling experience, I'd want an advantage. A large wrench or maglite would work fine. I don't condone lethal force, except when necessary. But you better believe that when I have a home/wife/kids/whole 9 yards, and someone breaks in, I'm shooting to put that fucker down. You don't mess with my family's safety. Sure, some people say "shoot him in the kneecap!"... bullshit. Sure, it's possible. And at a range, it's a fairly easy shot. I can get 1" groups at 15 yards.. that's much smaller than a kneecap. However, in real life, with adrenaline surging through your veins, your heart pumping fast, increased respiration... that's a damn near impossible shot. Know what's easy? Two shots, center mass. A torso is a nice big target. Even when it's moving and you're hopped up on adrenaline.. you can hit it.
I have nothing against people who don't like guns, I feel sorry that they feel that way. But to each his own. Just don't EVER try to take away my right to own guns. EVER. Let me emphasise that. NEVER. :2guns: :laugh:
Everyside of the fence quotes statistics from somewhere or another. Anyone can bend the #'s to prove their point.
The NRA says the # of actual deaths pales in comparison to deaths prevented by private gun ownership . who knows?
---------------------
My owning a weapon doesn't make the world safer, It provides me the means to keep my family safe.
------------------
Hows this.
IN 1991 a man rushed a pick up truck into a Lubby's restaurant in Killeen TX. (1 mile from where I lived across the from the mall)
20+ people were killed as he walked around and popped them off one by one.
At the time a woman who was a licensced gun carrier, was inside Lubby's with her mom and dad. She had left her weapon in her vehicle because it is illegal to carry a weapon into a public restaurant.
Apparently no one told the gunman who killed her parents, that his weapon was not allowed in a restaurant.....OOPS!
Some Laws make sense on paper...But even Gun haters have to realize you can't disarm citizens.
Quote from: 3imo on June 15, 2006, 02:06:57 PM
Anyone can bend the #'s to prove their point. The NRA says the # of actual deaths pales in comparison to deaths prevented by private gun ownership . who knows? ... Firearm accidents at home are 100% preventable, hows that for a statistic. My father knew there was a chance us boys would try to find and play with his guns. He made sure we could not find them.
I agree that anyone can bend statistics or use just what they want to make their point. However, I'm not trying to make any point with statistics; I'm just a sicko who likes to read and compare them for the sake of doing it! :icon_mrgreen:
I didn't grow up with firearms, either. I never even touched one until I was in college, but I found that I enjoyed shooting and that I was good at it. I had a friend who was in the police academy at the time, and he brought over his firearm to show my son. My son was fascinated, and it was a safe environment for him to examine the weapon up close, hold it, and learn more about it.
I haven't been shooting in a few years... I don't think my boyfriend will take me, because I think he thinks I'll shoot better than he does! :flipoff:
I'm hoping that this goading will get his testosterone moving, and then we can go shooting...I have no doubt that he's a better shot than I am, but I'm certainly not going to admit THAT to him! :icon_lol:
Yeah...I bet he thinks that I'll show him up! :flipoff: :kiss3:
Here's some info on guns in the home and suicides:
http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm
The third fact on the page reads:
"FACT: Access to lethal means, especially firearms, greatly increases the likelihood that someone will commit suicide. A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit a suicide than to be used in self-defense.
- Arthur Kellerman, Journal of Trauma, August 1998"
That's a pretty big number -- 11X as likely!!!
Again, I support the second amendment. It's purpose is to insure that citizens have the means to take up arms against an oppressive government (and we appear to be rapidly getting there, but that's a different thread!), but I choose not to have one in my house.
I was just thinking,
I wouldn't want to shoot someone who attempted to steal my bike....
that would be a too nice an ending for them.
I'd rather teach em a lesson with my cricket bat :thumb:
Like I said.. I wouldn't shoot em unless necessary. That's why I have one of those extending batons like police use. I used to carry it in my car, under the seat. Easier to carry than a baseball bat, but just as effective, if used properly. And 100% legal.
And trumpet guy, I know 11x is a lot. But what I'm saying is that if those guns were properly secured and/or hidden.. that could never happen. A trigger lock is $10 for a cheapy... best $10 you can spend for your gun!
http://www.beast-enterprises.com/ccw.html
We can throw stats at each other all day. The link is for Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW). Now these #'s are staggering.
Remember #'s can be bent to show whatever you want.
IMO THose who want to kill themselves will find a way (gun or not) Those who attempt suicide just for attention...shouldn't be dumb enough to use a gun.
----------
2. Anti-gunners cite "studies" they claim show that firearms kept at home are "43 times more likely" to be used to kill family members than be used for self-defense. (Other "studies" claim different ratios.) The 43:1 claim, based upon a small-scale study of Kings County (Seattle) and Shelby County (Memphis), is a fraud, because it counts as self-defense gun uses only those cases in which criminals were killed in the defender's home. Approximately 99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however -- criminals are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally wounded. Also, many defensive firearms uses occur away from home. Further, suicides were counted as "family member killings" in the "study," elevating that number more than 500%. Unfortunately, some of these "studies" are funded with taxpayer dollars, through grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
--------
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 15, 2006, 08:35:11 PM
"FACT: Access to lethal means, especially firearms, greatly increases the likelihood that someone will commit suicide. A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit a suicide than to be used in self-defense.
I don't question the statistic. It could mean that suicide is 11x more likely than a break-in or attack. In the cases where a gun is present, it is used. Or it could mean something else. Which is to say it means nothing. Like most other statistics. Remember, if we believed statistics has an effect on our life, we wouldn't be riding motorcycles, which are 10x more likely to be involved in an accident than automobiles.
Either way, suicide attempts are more lethal when guns are involved. Not a risk I'm electing to take with my family.
All statistics are not meaningless. When citations are present, the reader may read the entire study and ascertain flaws in the method. Statistics mean something when the method used to obtain them is sound.
As far as risk goes, I ride with gear and a helmet all the time. If I had a gun, I'd keep it unloaded and locked all the time. Would kind of spoil the "Rambo effect," I admit.
Reasonable minds may differ.
Unloaded, locked always, period.
Suicide? I'd prefer a blaze of glory personally (GS off a cliff at 100mph) into a helicopter's blades, with a rope tied around my neck and to a tree at the top of the cliff and three military guys with squad-automatic-weapons (SAWs) pumping me full of 5.56 NATO rounds.
With C4 set to detonate just as I pass the helicopter's blades.
(Yes, I'll wear my helmet and riding jacket.)
A single bullet is just so 1990's
Quote from: CirclesCenter on June 24, 2006, 09:31:26 PM
Suicide? I'd prefer a blaze of glory personally (GS off a cliff at 100mph) into a helicopter's blades, with a rope tied around my neck and to a tree at the top of the cliff and three military guys with squad-automatic-weapons (SAWs) pumping me full of 5.56 NATO rounds.
With C4 set to detonate just as I pass the helicopter's blades.
(Yes, I'll wear my helmet and riding jacket.)
And you would save your family a ton of money on casket costs.... :laugh:
Quote from: CirclesCenter on June 24, 2006, 09:31:26 PM
Unloaded, locked always, period.
Suicide? I'd prefer a blaze of glory personally (GS off a cliff at 100mph) into a helicopter's blades, with a rope tied around my neck and to a tree at the top of the cliff and three military guys with squad-automatic-weapons (SAWs) pumping me full of 5.56 NATO rounds.
With C4 set to detonate just as I pass the helicopter's blades.
(Yes, I'll wear my helmet and riding jacket.)
A single bullet is just so 1990's
uhh...I don't think it will work. According to my calculations, the GS (@400+lbs) going 100mph will most definitely overshoot the helicopter.
If NOT.... the blast from the C-4 will force you upward over the helicopter, the rope around your neck being cut by the blades just as you reach terminal velocity, which by then you will be going too fast for the SAW (M249 Light Machine Gun) gunners to hit you.
Their 5.56 Nato rounds cutting into the cliff causing a landslide, that builds up enough of a cushion below to break your fall.
Although that landing could kill you,
You would ultimatly be saved by your helmet and riding jacket. O0
But could have abit of gravel rash from the flip flops and assless chaps! :laugh: :laugh: