I read all of your post, but apparently the red haze in your eyes prevented you to read my post. According your logic everybody needs to own a gun to protect himself or their loved ones.

Training. Awareness. Responsibility. There are a bunch of loonatics around who have none of this qualifications.

I've been travelling around in the US a lot in the 80's and 90's. People advised me when being stopped by the police to remain in the car, keep my hands on the steering wheel at all time and dont reach for the glove department or anything else, it may cost you your life. This never happen in the many other countries I've driven in.

Because of all these guns around in the US, there's a particular violent aspect to the American society, proven by statistics, a fact all gunowners prefer to ignore.

I'm 42 and have spent 41 years in suburban, urban, and rural America. I have never seen a gun shot, except at a range. The only time I have heard a gun shot, except at a range, was from a hunter taking a pheasant in a nearby field.

I've heard the caution to act normally when stopped by cops. I know why it is given: because too many people lack common sense. I have never, ever, in my life, heard of a stopped driver getting shot by a cop. I have, unfortunately, heard of a cop getting shot dead during a traffic stop.

You could if you shot me.
Well, you really haven't said anything, have you?
No. I'm not interested in the law, I'm interested in what MaggieL will do. After all, you're the one with the gun, aren't you. Laws can't keep you from shooting me, only people can keep you from shooting me.
Really? The law includes speed limits. Have you ever driven faster than the speed limit? Answer, please - and don't lie. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Can you even manage to answer *that* question?
I don't have to care about the law. I don't own a gun, so I *can't* break the law.
Because you're too moronic to answer a plain and simple question. How many times have I asked, and you have been too moronic to answer?
Yep. That would be people who have guns.

Have you seen the SIZE of the decks on the cover of the decking and garden magazines lately!!! Those people are CRAZY!!!
Same thing... they always show the most extreme, you are right Bruce.
Since moving to the city the only time I have pulled my weapon out is to go to the range, to clean it and once when someone came into my yard at night... I told him to leave, he did.
I am a pacifist, a true pacifist, I have never once hit or harmed another human out of anger. I am not going to let someone harm me or my family, I believe in self defense, but am not ever looking to harm anyone.
However, I am never going to take a chance with my life or my families.
Letting someone have the chance to do harm to myself or my family is immoral, so I won't do it... it is simple.

When I did conceal carry I never had the impulse to shoot the guy who ran me off the road on my bike, which did happen, or a dog that was bothering me (well, perhaps a little, but I didn't)... it just does not work that way.
It is a weapon of last resort, and that is when you use it, but when the time does come, you do not hesitate.
You can invent all the scenarios you want Spexxvet, but my training, my desire not to kill, and a lifetime of experience with my weapon tells me when it is time to take out my gun. Once I do, I do not think twice about using it when the time comes, because that is when they shoot you.

Why wait for other people to protect you from her? You actually have the right to do it yourself. That's the whole point. We have really become European in this sense -- it's like we are completely unable to fend for ourselves. "Someone should do something about this" is a pretty weak-ass replacement for "I am doing something about this."

Yes, that's pretty much my view. If you are not willing to protect yourself and your loved ones, you must depend on others to do it for you. I'm not that trusting, I guess. The only reason more normal people don't have guns is because of the ridiculous legends and myths that have become associated with them. Eventually, in every argument of this nature, someone brings up Dirty Harry or John Wayne or some other movie figure. Kids grow up watching this and because they have no education, assign these mystical properties to firearms. They're like Michael Jordan's shoes -- if you can just get your hands on one, you'll be all powerful. If someone else has one, you are in dannnnnnnnnnnger automatically. It's just garbage. They're just guns, jeez. In the 50s, you could buy them in the mail, and kids took them to school and left em in the car so they could deer hunt in the afternoons. There were no Columbines then, even though guns were more prevalent. This is a simple fact. Think about it.

Are you arguing for or against self protection here?

People advised you incorrectly. You'll make cops nervous if you start ducking under your seat or acting squirrelly, but unless they know you're a bad guy, i.e., they run your plates and discover something bad about you, you can reach in the glove compartment -- in fact, you'll save time if you have your insurance and registration out by the time the cop gets to your window. Some people love to give foreigners "advice" that makes us sound like we're still playing cowboys and indians.

This is simply untrue on all counts. "Because of all these guns around" is not the reason people are violent. This is doubly unprovable by statistics. It's not a fact, which is why gunowners ignore it.

As much as I'm enjoying the endless back and forth between you and Spex on this one trivial point, I find myself wondering why you don't just cut and paste the law into a quoted post. Then you can both move on. Preface the quoted law by saying "this is what I would do."

Were you joking, flaming, or trolling, when you posted:

There’s nothing about inside/outside your home. It’s all tough talk about protecting yourself and your family. In this instance, do you trust that the criminal is not going to kill you? Maybe he doesn’t want a witness, and won’t let you walk/run away.

Reach down between your legs. Do you feel anything there? Any balls? You’ve insinuated that you would use your gun to “eliminate” a threat. You’ve said

And yet you wouldn’t do anything about the guy stealing your son’s wagon. Hmmmmm. Would you even have the gun in your hand when you walked out of your house, or would you be a sitting duck, for the criminal to gun down?

Either have the balls to back up your words, or stop talking tough.

All these threads have some pretty tough talk about having guns to protect yourselves, your family and your stuff - about killing criminals. But when push comes to shove, and I ask you (the collective you) to put your balls on the line and declare exactly what would make you shoot someone, the excuses and hedging comes out. “in the house is different than outside the house”, “I didn’t feel like my life was threatened so I didn’t draw my gun”, “I’m not going to answer your question, I’ll just keep throwing up straw men to evade the point”.

Tough talk, for a bunch of Maries.

Why do we have a police force and legal system? So that cooler heads can make a decision based on established laws and give a suspect due process and punishment fitting the crime? Maybe? If I "protected myself" from Maggie, how would that end? Is it wise for me to take those steps? What if your armed neighbor felt that your mom was a threat to him, and "didn't wait for other people to protect him from her"? Not a pleasant outcome to think about, is it? But that's your method for resolving conflict, right?

You are a sick-twisted-fucking little idiot and you know it. You have never had to make that kind of decision and you are not fit to make judgments of those who have. Those who chose to put themselves at risk to protect others by making those decisions you coward.
You are just playing games with words and nothing more. I am done with your pathetic, worthless, punk-ass now.
You have shown what you truly are. A true Troll with no dignity, no respect and no right to be here. Consider yourself ignored.

I'm not advocating anarchy. There are laws aplenty. You can't walk over to your neighbor's house to shoot their mom, for example. Your attempts to redefine the argument using wildly improbable scenarios is failing miserably, by the way.

And yes, cooler heads make decisions based on laws and give the suspect due process. But you've already been victimized at that point. If you protect yourself from an attack within the established law, that is......get ready for it..........

A GOOD THING.

The justice system is reactive. It cannot act until the crime has already occurred. You can prevent the crime from ever occurring in the first place by having a proper defense already in place: keep your things secure, walk away from trouble when possible, don't expose yourself to danger unnecessarily, and as a defense of last resort, be prepared to repel physical threats that have surmounted your other defenses. Or, sit quietly mewling in a corner while a criminal does what he wants with your family, your home, and your life. If you survive, I'm sure you will have a stirring testimony to give at the totally unnecessary trial of a person who you *allowed* to victimize you.

I'm closer to you on these issues than I am to them, because I don't like hand guns, but I'm a little uncomfortable to be associated with you right now. You are taking this a little too far.

rkzenrage has posted in the past about an incident when he almost shot an unidentified intruder breaking into his home, but didn't. The intruder was a kid trying to steal something, and he dragged the kid home to his parents instead.

MaggieL has stated that she will follow the law, and gave you a link to that law.

mrnoodle has recounted his experience where having a gun prevented a crime from occurring, and he explained how he wouldn't kill someone to protect his gear.

I think all three of them are being reasonable here. They treat each situation on a case by case basis, and pretty much all of them have said they wouldn't use a gun unless they felt threatened.

Glatt, all I really want is for one of them to acknowledge that even though they can legally own a gun, there are some pretty severe negatives associated with them. Mistakes, accidents, poor judgement, guns being stolen from law-abiding citzens, law-abing citizens getting guns and using them for unlawful purposes, law-abiding citizens getting guns and selling them to criminals, hypocritical behavior, irresponsible behavior, to name a few, are all negatives when it comes to owning a gun, and are reasonable concerns raised by gun-control advocates. And not RK, Maggie, Noodle, Wolf are brave enough acknowledge this reality. It's excuses, straw men, rationalization, ignoring questions and facts - spin and innuendo. Rk calls me a and can't admit that weapons-related injury/death should be a legitimate reason to re-evaluate gun laws because the right to bear arms is a Right. And he's the one who owns a gun! I guess I will never be able to open a closed mind.

Pop quiz!



All _____ have potential lethality. Alone, they are nothing. Misused, they are dangerous. Used correctly, they are beneficial.

a) cars
b) guns
c) hands
d) feet
e) ideas
f) shovels
g) rights
h) all of the above, and more

I think the NRA has done an effective job of training everyone to recognize the beginnings of a slippery slope. If they admit there are problems with guns, then they have to admit that those problems need to be solved. That can only mean regulation. They don't want regulation. Therefore, they can't admit there are problems with guns.

See?