2008-08-13, 03:01 | Link #41 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Trinidad.....anyone get me out of here !
|
I think stealing is over greed. You already have what you need yet you steal. Why would one steal to satisfy himself and being inconsiderate to others. But what happens if a thief steals from a thief? Is it allowed since he steals from others? It is only natural one would think so. If he steals then I guess he allows others to steal from him. For the bandits it is very hard to just sit and stay quiet with what they have and don't have. They cannot remain comfortable. I don't even know if there's a solution to people stealing or crime.
|
2008-08-13, 03:06 | Link #42 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
1) Hard to maneuver in tight places like hallways 2) Better suited as a club for close combat 3) All bullets have a nasty tendency to keep flying past the target whether they hit them or not. This is bad, especially for the people in the next apartment or house. A slower moving frangible bullet mitigates that problem since frangibles don't tend to fly through the first impact or two. Using a small pellet shotgun is an even better solution. At close range the pellet cloud might as well be a slug and farther out each pellet does less damage and drywall/wood more effectively retards the velocity. Note that some pistols also have the same problems that a gunowner has to consider when pointing a weapon.
__________________
|
|
2008-08-13, 09:05 | Link #43 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
If a firearm is a choice for home defense, absolutely, a shotgun is a better choice. Considering the potential for "pass through", if shooting a pistol, hollow points or frangible bullets in a lower-velocity round are best (where they're not outlawed by idiotic legislators). But regardless of what one is shooting, being aware of both the target and what's behind it is basic firearm safety, and if some one can't manage that, they shouldn't be shooting at all.
__________________
|
|
2008-08-14, 22:44 | Link #44 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
.... kind of like driving a car. One should continually edu.... o wait :P
__________________
|
|
2008-08-17, 04:52 | Link #45 |
HI, BILLY MAYS HERE
|
Instead of asking "What to do when robbed" you should ask "What to do to prevent being robbed"
My 4" serrated Smith & Wesson Homeland Security pocket knife does some nice tricks where my 6" Smith & Wesson Search & Rescue survival knife would be illegal for me to carry in public... Concealed firearms also work wonders; The only reason why I don't have a license to pack is because I"m 20, and KY law forbids me from owning a pistol until I turn 21, though home defense is still in question with a semi-auto assault rifle...Damn, what I would give for an AR-15 Carbine and a 1911 if my financial status wasn't so bearish...Of course, firearms won't work if you don't know how to shoot, so if you don't know how to shoot, you should either join the US Armed Forces or don't draw too much attention... ...and if all else fails, become a monk, because no one steals from the already-poor...
__________________
|
2008-08-18, 11:08 | Link #46 | |
Hei aka Li Xiansheng
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kasumigaseki; where contractors dwell.
Age: 36
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-08-18, 17:20 | Link #48 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Trinidad.....anyone get me out of here !
|
Then let is be just a phrase. Don't think that phrase it the ultimate truth. Create your own ultimate truth and doubt the previous one. Why can't there be peace without crime etc ? We create our own limits and boundaries within our mind, we can overcome these things. You don't have to take my word for it, you can try it out yourself. Not being bound by anything does not mean that you are being bounded by the statement from the person you heard it from. Once someone believes in something it is very hard to persuade them otherwise.
|
2008-08-20, 20:42 | Link #49 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
I've always somewhat wondered what would happen if more people fought back. For your own safety, you're supposed to comply with a thief's demands. Your property isn't worth more than your life, and fighting over it may cost you that - that's the reasoning behind why you're supposed to comply, and then notify law enforcement. What message does that send to aggressors? If you look big and scary enough, you can walk up to people, simulate a gun/use a toy gun, and walk off with loads of property fairly easily. You risk getting caught and jail time, but based off of my university's crime reports it would seem that the criminals are caught far less often than crimes occur. Jail time is not much of a deterrant for many who have previous experience with it either, it would seem. What if people did fight back? The "low hanging fruit" is suddenly much harder to find, because there's a greater chance that things won't go so easily. Wasn't there a study which showed that LoJack car alarms granted a beneficial "herd immunity" in terms of car theft? (For those who don't know, LoJack will alert police and track a car's location if it detects that it is stolen. LoJack doesn't make itself known, so a criminal has no way of knowing what car has LoJack equipped. If enough cars have LoJack, then criminals likely won't even want to try stealing any cars, so even cars without LoJack are relatively safe.) I don't like the idea that every person should take justice into their own hands (imagine a Bakuretsu Tenshi scenario, where everyone carries a firearm and society begins to crumble), but I'm also not thrilled with the idea of defaulting to standing by and complying with any and all commands from an aggressor.
__________________
|
|
2008-08-20, 23:42 | Link #50 |
HI, BILLY MAYS HERE
|
Wow, am I seeing this right? A New Yorker arguing for the talking point of self-defense? Wow, I guess not all of you people are Clinton and Schumer types...
Of course I jest! You're right though; There are some people that are probably too knee-deep into conflict-resolution that they probably don't understand the concept of self-defense in face of an imposing threat for fear that self-defense might cause aggression...Of course that doesn't make sense, since self-defense wouldn't come up in a situation without someone unreasonably attacking someone else...If someone were coming after my family with a weapon, you could bet your bananas I'm going to take a counter-initiative and fight back... People just need to understand that a violent-free society is about as realistic as a no-place Utopia...You're always going to have a few delusional psychos who feel the need to commit atrocious crimes and hurt the innocent in the process, and logic isn't going to be good enough to reason with them...So you have to fight back force with an equal or greater force in order to survive...Stand back and recite the lines to "Kumbaya" instead and you'll get cut down...Vigilante justice doesn't work, but of course, that's an offensive counter-crime technique, not defensive...
__________________
|
2008-08-21, 02:32 | Link #51 | ||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
In short, criminals almost only perpetrate crimes because they feel free to do so, and they feel free to do so because society allows it. I've posted a link to this essay in passing in a nearby thread about six months ago, but I think it's relevant here: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...f-defence.html (For what it's worth, I never recommend compliance unless it is a matter of life or death and it is either the only available option or clear that the aggressor will be satisfied. After all, criminals who have no desire to enact violence generally make efforts to avoid confrontation.) Quote:
I've also yet to meet a person who has actually had to deal with violence and crime in the capacity of law enforcement (where escalation of violence is a real risk) who is not a staunch advocate of self-defence. To me, that says a lot.
__________________
Last edited by Kyuusai; 2008-08-21 at 10:48. |
||
2008-08-21, 10:28 | Link #52 | ||
is this so?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gradius Home World
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Liddo-kun; 2008-08-21 at 10:44. |
||
2008-08-22, 23:06 | Link #54 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
By that I assume you mean legal standard autoloading (rather than some "machinegun" capability")
To those unfamiliar with firearms: "automatic" does not equal "semi-automatic" or "autoloading".
__________________
|
2008-08-23, 00:31 | Link #57 |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quick terminology lesson:
"Automatic" refers to the loading process. In short, it's a non-revolving mechanism that loads a cartridge into the barrel automatically after firing. A "fully automatic" weapon will fire, load, and fire continually while the trigger is pressed. A "semi-automatic" weapon (which is most of them) will fire one shot per pull of the trigger. So the next time you hear on the news that some one had an "automatic" firearm, you can be relatively sure that all that means is it was a semi-automatic, just like almost every other firearm out there. It's just sensationalism, like the term "assault" rifle (which means it's just like nearly every other rifle). The Glock 19 is a compact version of the Glock 17 (the "classic" 9mm Glock), and is, as Vexx noted, a semi-automatic. The Glock 18, though, is a fully automatic pistol! You'll go broke shooting it, though... Most fully automatic capable rifles today have a "burst mode", which will fire a small number of shots while the trigger is depressed, and then stop. This helps to avoid wild firing and really helps save money by reducing ammunition waste. Contrary to popular belief and the desire of idiots to glamorize the idea of indiscriminate shooting, the use of fully automatic weapons is not being able to do more killing--in fact, it's danged hard to hit anything that way (even the "firing into a crowd" scenario doesn't make much sense, as an unarmed crowd can't really do better against a non-fully-automatic firearm). Instead, the only use that makes sense is "suppressive fire". Yes. Oh, yes.
__________________
|
2008-08-31, 16:37 | Link #58 |
death by animeoverdos X_X
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: hinamizawa in an endless cycle of death
Age: 33
|
try not to be too paranoid with self defence against robbers now. what may be someone robbing your house might actually be your family/friend coming home late or going through the window because they misplaced their keys. dad almost got shot by my mom that way. bullet went through like 2 walls...
__________________
|
2008-09-01, 04:54 | Link #59 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Thought experiment: what if you confront a robber with your weapon of choice, and he says "I can either go quietly, and you forget you ever saw me, or you can turn me in, I'll do a little jail time, and when I get out? I kill you and your family." |
||
2008-09-01, 05:38 | Link #60 | |
HI, BILLY MAYS HERE
|
Quote:
In either case, that "No confrontation without superior strength" is a bunch of BS... In a more obvious light, a good guy with a pistol can out-gun a criminal with a rifle with some quick thinking and proper shooting...Non-lethal weapons like pepper spray and tasers are designed to incapacitate an enemy in order for the user to quickly gain the upper-hand... In a less obvious light, there are self-defense programs that will teach an unarmed woman how to subdue a man twice her size and strength using a man's own size against him...Pick up any monthly gun magazine at a bookstore and they're constantly giving self-defense response and action techniques in various less-than-ideal situations where the criminal would seemingly have the upper hand...One article that stood out in my mind was one where it taught the reader how to respond to a criminal charging at various distances who's using various weapons... More than half the time in self-defense situations, all it usually takes is a little preparedness and a focused mind to out-think the criminal...No one can actually expect the unexpected since we're not psychics, but everyone has the potential to properly respond when the unexpected happens...People don't have to go along with being the victim, while well-versed people also know not to take needless and stupid actions...Of course, taking on a criminal isn't even an option for most intended victims, but it also doesn't hurt when some are knowledgeable and are able to fight back...And even at the other end of the spectrum, even the most formidable of fighters can get easily taken down by a petty criminal just because the criminal had a burst of pathetic luck... The only thing is that while some people may believe in conflict-resolution, most criminals do not, so it's best if someone knows how to face that in theory just in case the worst case scenario happens...
__________________
|
|
Tags |
guns |
|
|