(04-01-2017, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Given how poorly this robbery was planned you might be right about that.
It most certainly seems so.
It's a damn shame that people put their life on the line for B&E/Theft.
(04-01-2017, 11:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So if a homeowner used sarin gass to defend his home you all would be in favor of letting everyone buy serin gas at WalMart?
The logic used by some people around here is comical.
"The fact that a homeowner used Sarin gas to defend his home proves that there is no reasn that everfyone should be allowed to buy it. Derp."
I wouldn't be in favor of a person using sarin gas to defend their home.
It takes too long, is not an easily controlled/contained state of matter, and is cruel and unusual punishment.
The idea is to suppress a threat, as fast and safe as possible.
(04-01-2017, 12:37 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: It most certainly seems so.
It's a damn shame that people put their life on the line for B&E/Theft.
I wouldn't be in favor of a person using sarin gas to defend their home.
It takes too long, is not an easily controlled/contained state of matter, and is cruel and unusual punishment.
The idea is to suppress a threat, as fast and safe as possible.
But....you knew that.
How about a sarin gas chamber around the entire home. Make it through the first door, but don't know the code for the 2nd chamber door and bye bye. You could film it and make your investment back after a single failed attempt.
I've been on the fence in the past, but the cats out of the bag at this point. It's an arms race. No turning back.
(04-01-2017, 05:18 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: How about a sarin gas chamber around the entire home. Make it through the first door, but don't know the code for the 2nd chamber door and bye bye. You could film it and make your investment back after a single failed attempt.
I've been on the fence in the past, but the cats out of the bag at this point. It's an arms race. No turning back.
You're a sick bastard (not to be taken literally, as I don't know the marital status of your parents, at the time of your birth), but that's one of things I like the most about you.
(04-01-2017, 10:57 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: C'mon...
An air-horn and a flintlock pistol would've been more than enough.
No Roto, not even an automatic pistol or a pump shotgun could have done the job in this case.
It had to be a military style semi-automatic weapon. An AK-47 might have substituted.
Hopeless trying to defend a home without one of those and at least a 10 round magazine.
This is why military style weapons need to remain legal.
Also, guys carrying them look really dangerous and "tactical"--cool!
(04-01-2017, 08:03 PM)Dill Wrote: No Roto, not even an automatic pistol or a pump shotgun could have done the job in this case.
It had to be a military style semi-automatic weapon. An AK-47 might have substituted.
Hopeless trying to defend a home without one of those and at least a 10 round magazine.
This is why military style weapons need to remain legal.
Also, guys carrying them look really dangerous and "tactical"--cool!
Perhaps an automatic pistol or pump action shotgun could have done the job; however, we'd just be speculating. what we do know is the weapon used allowed the man to defend his home and family against armed intruders without collateral damage.
Unfortunately, there are those out there that think he shouldn't be able to posses such a firearm and they will try to use everything from red herrings to ridiculous parody to defend their belief that folks should only posses weapons they deem suitable.
(04-01-2017, 08:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, guys carrying them look really dangerous and "tactical"--cool!
While the rest of your post was a bit of fun, this part should be considered quite seriously.
You hit on something that is rarely discussed.
There is obviously the psychological aspect of the black, scary rifle.
Wouldn't you think that the described aspect could lead to a more peaceful resolution in a confrontation, by the perpetrator fleeing in fear of such a weapon ?
I know the owner would need to not be a gung go cowboy, but such a factor is worthy of consideration.
I suppose the ultimate visual assault would be a nude poster of Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn't want to risk the collateral damage that may come from an eye-gouging event like that.
I also wouldn't want prosecuted for cruel and unusual punishment.
(04-02-2017, 10:47 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: While the rest of your post was a bit of fun, this part should be considered quite seriously.
You hit on something that is rarely discussed.
There is obviously the psychological aspect of the black, scary rifle.
Wouldn't you think that the described aspect could lead to a more peaceful resolution in a confrontation, by the perpetrator fleeing in fear of such a weapon ?
I know the owner would need to not be a gung go cowboy, but such a factor is worthy of consideration.
I suppose the ultimate visual assault would be a nude poster of Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn't want to risk the collateral damage that may come from an eye-gouging event like that.
I also wouldn't want prosecuted for cruel and unusual punishment.
I believe the same effect could be achieved with a pump action shotgun.
(04-01-2017, 10:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps an automatic pistol or pump action shotgun could have done the job; however, we'd just be speculating. what we do know is the weapon used allowed the man to defend his home and family against armed intruders without collateral damage.
Unfortunately, there are those out there that think he shouldn't be able to posses such a firearm and they will try to use everything from red herrings to ridiculous parody to defend their belief that folks should only posses weapons they deem suitable.
I really think the discussions on which weapons are "suitable" has often come down to one like the one used for home defense in the OK case are more often than not used for offense instead. That raises red flags whenever they are mentioned.
If the average Joe only hears about them when some lone wolf, nut case ™ goes on a shooting spree they are more likely to find it dangerous.
Versus say when a vehicle is used to run people over on purpose. Because the average Joe see lots and lots of cars and trucks and so the rarity of one being used for deliberate violence doesn't have the same affect.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(04-02-2017, 11:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: I really think the discussions on which weapons are "suitable" has often come down to one like the one used for home defense in the OK case are more often than not used for offense instead. That raises red flags whenever they are mentioned.
If the average Joe only hears about them when some lone wolf, nut case ™ goes on a shooting spree they are more likely to find it dangerous.
Versus say when a vehicle is used to run people over on purpose. Because the average Joe see lots and lots of cars and trucks and so the rarity of one being used for deliberate violence doesn't have the same affect.
And it appears the AR 15 is "suitable" for home defense as illustrated by this example. As I said this is one debate settled and one less dividing point in the forum.
(04-01-2017, 10:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps an automatic pistol or pump action shotgun could have done the job; however, we'd just be speculating. what we do know is the weapon used allowed the man to defend his home and family against armed intruders without collateral damage.
Unfortunately, there are those out there that think he shouldn't be able to posses such a firearm and they will try to use everything from red herrings to ridiculous parody to defend their belief that folks should only posses weapons they deem suitable.
So then "we know" as well that it HAD to be military-style weapon. No speculation about that. Got the job done military style.
Or something.
"We" only want folks to possess weapons WE deem suitable.
But "they" believe folks should only possess weapons THEY deem suitable.
And "they" will try everything. But the debate is settled now. One person gets to decide.
(04-02-2017, 10:47 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: You hit on something that is rarely discussed.
There is obviously the psychological aspect of the black, scary rifle.
Wouldn't you think that the described aspect could lead to a more peaceful resolution in a confrontation, by the perpetrator fleeing in fear of such a weapon ?
I know the owner would need to not be a gung go cowboy, but such a factor is worthy of consideration.
I am not sure that military-style weapons look scarier to people who break in homes and likely know something about weapons.
Up close, I would rather be shot with a rifle than a 12 gauge. Also there are semi automatic shotguns.
Seems to me a handgun would do just fine in most situations.
Would someone who favors peaceful resolutions buy a military-style rifle for "home defense"?
(04-02-2017, 02:37 PM)Dill Wrote: So then "we know" as well that it HAD to be military-style weapon. No speculation about that. Got the job done military style.
Or something.
"We" only want folks to possess weapons WE deem suitable.
But "they" believe folks should only possess weapons THEY deem suitable.
And "they" will try everything. But the debate is settled now. One person gets to decide.
You are quickly becoming the king of the Straw Man around here as nobody said it HAD to be a "military-style" weapon. I am saying an AR 15 was used and was suitable for the job.
Of course the debate is not settled. Folks have said they don't want citizens possessing certain type of firearms and nothing will change their minds.
(04-02-2017, 02:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Seems to me a handgun would do just fine in most situations.
Would someone who favors peaceful resolutions buy a military-style rifle for "home defense"?
I prefer a handgun, myself.
With your question, I don't think that one has any relevance to the other.
I can't really speculate people's intentions, but I'd at least like to think that people are not buying guns, while harbouring murderous intentions.
In your opinion, what would you say is unnecessary or dangerous about someone utilizing a "military-style" weapon ?
I'm going to assume it's not magazine size, being as you served and know how fast people swap out a mag.
(Forgive me, if you are not of the opinion that citizens should not own them. I do not recall your stance.)
(04-02-2017, 03:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You are quickly becoming the king of the Straw Man around here as nobody said it HAD to be a "military-style" weapon. I am saying an AR 15 was used and was suitable for the job.
Of course the debate is not settled. Folks have said they don't want citizens possessing certain type of firearms and nothing will change their minds.
Somebody (a straw man?) said we'd only be speculating if we thought a handgun or shotgun could have done the job, and then said the military style got it done. So is somebody speculating now that the weapon didn't have to be a military style?
And somebody pronounced the debate settled in this forum.
Except "they" are at it again, so the debate is still on, though not really a debate because NOTHING will change THEIR minds. "We" of course are different. Something would change ours. It just doesn't.
(04-02-2017, 03:43 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I prefer a handgun, myself.
With your question, I don't think that one has any relevance to the other.
I can't really speculate people's intentions, but I'd at least like to think that people are not buying guns, while harbouring murderous intentions.
In your opinion, what would you say is unnecessary or dangerous about someone utilizing a "military-style" weapon ?
I'm going to assume it's not magazine size, being as you served and know how fast people swap out a mag.
(Forgive me, if you are not of the opinion that citizens should not own them. I do not recall your stance.)
Actually, I didn't serve, though I have spent years living in a deployed military environment (I retired in 2012).
Like you I would prefer a handgun. (I have one but it is not much good for home defense since it is a black powder revolver and messy to load.) In a house, any long-barreled gun might be cumbersome. And someone might grab the barrel at close quarters.
My comment about intent was based on years of living around people buying military-style weapons and talking about what they would or would like to use them for. I grew up in rural Montana, where everyone hunts. We mostly used a Springfield (1917) 30.06, which was a "military-style" weapon when we first got it. Then my dad cut the stock down and put a scope on it. Much lighter. Most of the people we hunted (including my father) with were WW2-Korea vets. Hunting was a means of getting food and guns were tools for doing that. They were modified to make them more practical tools. Some were highly polished and a little decorated. No one talked about "home defense" or spent time imagining what he would do if he caught someone in the garage at night, etc.
I was in Europe for most of the '80s, and when I returned in '93 things had changed. I saw more people, mostly younger, getting military-style weapons that looked automatic. I think an M-4 is a good weapon for today's soldiers, who have to get in and out of cramped vehicles all the time and sometimes need to fight house-to-house. I can understand why a former military person who used one might want one because he is very familiar with it or just out of nostalgia. No problem there. I concede one might be good for home defense--less cumbersome than any of the hunting rifles and shotguns in my parents home. Faster rate of fire than bolt action or pump, too.
But every year I meet people who bought one or more because they want the "cool" automatic weapon look. And they don't just talk about hunting with them. They imagine what they would do if the government tried to take them away or someone broke into their house. So what concerns me is the way the guns bolster an imagined "tactical" identity, and perhaps help the owners act it out. E.g., I find it uncomfortable sitting at a bar with off-duty police men (in a town of 14,000) who have never been in combat rattling on about the neat new tactical gear they are personally purchasing or watching others at the local target range firing at man-shaped targets. When I was a teen, no one shot at man-shaped targets in my circle of acquaintances. Only police used them on their range. Why would anyone else want to do that hour after hour?
For me, it is less about that weapon itself than why many people want them.
(04-02-2017, 06:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Somebody (a straw man?) said we'd only be speculating if we thought a handgun or shotgun could have done the job, and then said the military style got it done. So is somebody speculating now that the weapon didn't have to be a military style?
Of course we're speculating if we think; however, we are not speculating when we point to what really happened. I truly don't know how to answer the question you have asked, but I'll give it a go: Yes we are speculating if we say it didn't have to be a "military style" (whatever the hell that is); as that is not what was used in this situation.
Quote:And somebody pronounced the debate settled in this forum.
The debate is most likely only settled among rational folks. I overestimated the audience.
Quote:Except "they" are at it again, so the debate is still on, though not really a debate because NOTHING will change THEIR minds. "We" of course are different. Something would change ours. It just doesn't.
I have zero idea what you have said it these 3 sentences. Perhaps you or someone can "dumb it down" for me.
(03-31-2017, 10:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd guess people who think "assault weapons" have no legitimate self defense purpose.
Check, The Trace, Everytown and Moms Demand Action. All of them make arguments that "assault weapons" serve no legitimate civilian purpose. They are weapons of war! Now that i think about it, there have been several posters on this board who've made similar arguments.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
