Since you own a gun... - Page 9

Undertoad · 10-13-2006, 12:56 PM

If he leaves the room there is not a continous struggle. If there is not a continuous struggle he is not threatened with deadly harm. If he is not threatened with deadly harm he should not threaten with deadly harm. If he does, he is a violent felon. That's my reasoning and I'm stickin to it.

Shawnee123 · 10-13-2006, 12:58 PM

If the other dude/dudette keeps him from leaving the room there is a struggle. If d/dette is very strong, there is threat of deadly harm as well as ability to wrestle the deadly weapon away. We don't know.

Just sayin'

Undertoad · 10-13-2006, 01:00 PM

Well no, he left the room to get his gun.

If there is not immediate deadly harm, he should dial 911 at that point.

If there is immediate deadly harm, he should come out shooting.

Shawnee123 · 10-13-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well no, he left the room to get his gun.

If there is not immediate deadly harm, he should dial 911 at that point.

If there is immediate deadly harm, he should come out shooting.

Yep, sorry, stand corrected...

Undertoad · 10-13-2006, 02:39 PM

On the matter of clarity, Spexx, that's an awful lot of detail and only the survivor lived to tell the tale. All we really know is there is a TV in the bedroom, and a dead guy with a knot on his head and shot with his own gun. The details are left to the defense lawyer. But I take your point.

mrnoodle · 10-13-2006, 02:55 PM

In Sven's case, the gun didn't have much to do with the lethality of the situation. As soon as Pat refused to leave, (gender inspecific pronoun) went from invited guest to trespasser. Sven made his first critical mistake here. His life wasn't in danger yet, so lethal force wasn't warranted. If Pat refused to leave, Sven should have. The first line of defense is removing yourself from danger. Alcohol, embarrassment, and machismo turned it into a fistfight and whatever escalated from there. If no guns had been present, there's still an excellent chance that someone would've died, or at least been raped. Death wasn't automatic because of the gun, either. I've seen someone with more than 30 wounds from 9mm pistols, and only 4 were lethal.

MaggieL · 10-13-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I've seen someone with more than 30 wounds from 9mm pistols, and only 4 were lethal.

No, a 9mm isn't exactly a hand cannon. I carry a 9mm because it's light and concealable and was cheap. I envy Gwennie her Kimber Pro-Carry.

Of course, poor marksmanship makes any firearm less effective.

Flint · 10-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

...poor marksmanship makes any firearm less effective.

So does ninjas.

mrnoodle · 10-13-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

So does ninjas.

Okay, deal. I will give up my guns if I can be a ninja.

edit: no I won't

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-14-2006, 10:46 PM

This example of Spexxvet's can be summed up in few words: not being in any wise aware of firearms training or technique, Spexxvet thinks armed self defense is doomed to failure at all times. Spexx fails to consider that if armed defense of self or other were as ineffectual as his superstitious, ignorant, and pro-crime neurotic thinking causes him to imagine, policemen would not carry guns. Kid, the British Bobbies started carrying ten years ago and are slowly carrying more and more often. Seems the softie stay-at-homes are catching up with the tough frontiersy types that left them and came here: our living was tougher and so were our crooks.

The people who know armed self defense disagree with Spexx's entire approach, top to bottom.

Ibby · 10-15-2006, 12:15 AM

If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont.

Dumbass.

Bullitt · 10-15-2006, 01:17 AM

And that fairytale scenario will never happen

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-17-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont.

Swords, pollaxes, bows and bills, pikes and lances, maces and warhammers. Changes the sound of battle from boom bang rattatat to clatter thump and scream, but really just about as bloody.

Lots of fun when you get rid of the blood part, though:

http://www.sca.org

Been in a few melees myself.

Ibby · 10-15-2006, 02:55 AM

I never said it would happen, I said that's my ideal solution. Note the use of the word ideal.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-15-2006, 05:36 PM

But ideal is far from reality on any subject I can think of.

OK, remove all guns from the equation. Robbers will still want to rob, for all the same reasons they do now. But now, instead of showing a gun and demanding your wallet, they have to get up close and personal. Close enough to threaten you with a knife, hammer, lead pipe.
That puts them at risk, so it would be much safer for them to just bash your head in, before you're aware you're being robbed. If you don't think being bashed in the head with a hammer/lead pipe is as bad as being shot....you're wrong.

10-13-2006, 12:58 PM	#2
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	If the other dude/dudette keeps him from leaving the room there is a struggle. If d/dette is very strong, there is threat of deadly harm as well as ability to wrestle the deadly weapon away. We don't know. Just sayin' __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

10-13-2006, 02:55 PM	#6
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	In Sven's case, the gun didn't have much to do with the lethality of the situation. As soon as Pat refused to leave, (gender inspecific pronoun) went from invited guest to trespasser. Sven made his first critical mistake here. His life wasn't in danger yet, so lethal force wasn't warranted. If Pat refused to leave, Sven should have. The first line of defense is removing yourself from danger. Alcohol, embarrassment, and machismo turned it into a fistfight and whatever escalated from there. If no guns had been present, there's still an excellent chance that someone would've died, or at least been raped. Death wasn't automatic because of the gun, either. I've seen someone with more than 30 wounds from 9mm pistols, and only 4 were lethal. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

10-14-2006, 10:46 PM	#10
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	This example of Spexxvet's can be summed up in few words: not being in any wise aware of firearms training or technique, Spexxvet thinks armed self defense is doomed to failure at all times. Spexx fails to consider that if armed defense of self or other were as ineffectual as his superstitious, ignorant, and pro-crime neurotic thinking causes him to imagine, policemen would not carry guns. Kid, the British Bobbies started carrying ten years ago and are slowly carrying more and more often. Seems the softie stay-at-homes are catching up with the tough frontiersy types that left them and came here: our living was tougher and so were our crooks. The people who know armed self defense disagree with Spexx's entire approach, top to bottom. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

10-15-2006, 12:15 AM	#11
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont. Dumbass. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-15-2006, 01:17 AM	#12
Bullitt This is a fully functional babe lair Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Akron, OH Posts: 2,324	And that fairytale scenario will never happen __________________ Kiss my white Irish ass.

10-13-2006, 12:56 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	If he leaves the room there is not a continous struggle. If there is not a continuous struggle he is not threatened with deadly harm. If he is not threatened with deadly harm he should not threaten with deadly harm. If he does, he is a violent felon. That's my reasoning and I'm stickin to it.

10-13-2006, 01:00 PM	#3
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Well no, he left the room to get his gun. If there is not immediate deadly harm, he should dial 911 at that point. If there is immediate deadly harm, he should come out shooting.

10-13-2006, 02:39 PM	#5
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	On the matter of clarity, Spexx, that's an awful lot of detail and only the survivor lived to tell the tale. All we really know is there is a TV in the bedroom, and a dead guy with a knot on his head and shot with his own gun. The details are left to the defense lawyer. But I take your point.

10-15-2006, 02:55 AM	#14
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	I never said it would happen, I said that's my ideal solution. Note the use of the word ideal. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-15-2006, 05:36 PM	#15
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	But ideal is far from reality on any subject I can think of. OK, remove all guns from the equation. Robbers will still want to rob, for all the same reasons they do now. But now, instead of showing a gun and demanding your wallet, they have to get up close and personal. Close enough to threaten you with a knife, hammer, lead pipe. That puts them at risk, so it would be much safer for them to just bash your head in, before you're aware you're being robbed. If you don't think being bashed in the head with a hammer/lead pipe is as bad as being shot....you're wrong. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)