Firearms yes or no

[ASWnut101]

and for a commandment: YOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!

Nice. First, it's Thou shall not kill.


Let's try these:

#8) "Thou shalt not steal."
#10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's



Lets keep religion OUT of this. Please.

[Sailor Steve]

I will only address this one point, since others have answered the rest.

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

A thigh and upper leg area is an easy enough area of the body to hit, drugs or not, you put a bullet or two in someones thigh and they WILL fall down. They may not feel it, but you can't stand without your thighs, its a given fact.

Actually, it's not a given fact. People (?) on PCP (AKA Angel Dust) have been know to be shot multiple times in the legs, arms AND torso and still lived long enough to do serious damage to police officers and their vehicles. If you manage to seriously break both legs it might help, but its still not a certainty.

I would rather have that, than someone's death on my conscience. Even if they were the dregs of society.

As some with once said "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six". Truth is, if it's just me I wouldn't say for sure, but if someone is endangering my kids I wouldn't even think twice.

[August]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

I would rather have that, than someone's death on my conscience. Even if they were the dregs of society.

Whose death would you rather have on your concience? A dreg of society or your families because you stood by and did nothing?

[Penelope_Grey]

Lower legs, yes they might just still be able to stand, but they lose their thigh muscles they will do down, immaterial of drugs because the thigh is what keeps you standing up, and moving, without that, you are immoble, lose both and you are history.

Its noble you do whatever it takes to protect your children but, I would rather sacrifice myself than see my father become a killer even in self defence.

Whose death would you rather have on your concience? A dreg of society or your families because you stood by and did nothing?

Nobodies preferabbly. But I am no hero, if anybody in my family was going to die at the hand of a dreg of society, then it would probably be me, least likely to die would be my brother becuase he has a vicious streak a mile wide and the strength and power to back up any threat he would make.

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Nice. First, it's Thou shall not kill.


Let's try these:

#8) "Thou shalt not steal."
#10) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,.....nor anything that is thy neighbor's



Lets keep religion OUT of this. Please.

Thnx for the correction, I knew it's thou, just didn't remeber when I wrote that...

Now, just someone is stealing from you does not give you a right to KILL someone.
You are allowed to hurt him, but not to execute him...
Given the case of stealing, use stealth, under cover of darkness and knock him out and call 911 or whatev, but first things first, bound hiim so he couldn't move...
There you go, he lives, but paid the price...
IF the suspect is packing heat, then, well... Deadly force is authorized if a life is threatened by a thief...
The best solution is if the incident could be avoided and no kills...

[Yahoshua]

Further correction, the 6th command is no phrased "Thou shalt not kill." (as the nation of Israel was commanded on various occasions to purge idolators and extremely evil people from their midst).

But is properly phrased "Thou shalt not murder."

And that carries a whole different connotation to it.

[ReallyDedPoet]

It's not the gun, but the person holding the gun that determines this question and where it goes.

Nothing new, just my thoughts, and can be said about just about everything

[August]

Originally Posted by GakunGak

Given the case of stealing, use stealth, under cover of darkness and knock him out and call 911 or whatev, but first things first, bound hiim so he couldn't move...

You've been watching too many hollywood movies dude. You can't seriously think that would work.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Further correction, the 6th command is no phrased "Thou shalt not kill." (as the nation of Israel was commanded on various occasions to purge idolators and extremely evil people from their midst).

But is properly phrased "Thou shalt not murder."

And that carries a whole different connotation to it.

My turn to nitpick: "Thou Shalt..." is fine for the King James version; that was the way everybody spoke in 1611. There are newer translations.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by waste gate

As a means of defense, are the use of firearms any less worthy than martial arts?
I attempted to post some parts of the martial arts thread, but, I was unsuccessful.

My opinion is that firearms are no less legitimate as a means of self defense than any other. Am I wrong?

Well i dont think anyone in their right mind would take on someone that has a load double barrel shotgun pointed at their face, maybe if your as quick as Bruce Lee u would beable to disarm him :rotfl:
Mr Kung fu lee, Mr Street fighter or the pit fighter aint got a chance against a arrogant basta*d with a loaded shotty.

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Well i dont think anyone in their right mind would take on someone that has a load double barrel shotgun pointed at their face, maybe if your as quick as Bruce Lee u would beable to disarm him :rotfl:
Mr Kung fu lee, Mr Street fighter or the pit fighter aint got a chance against a arrogant basta*d with a loaded shotty.

Now why would you imply that only an arrogant individual would have a laoded scattergun?

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Now why would you imply that only an arrogant individual would have a laoded scattergun?

i meant if the thug has the shotty if the homeowner has the shotty & comes face to face with a knife weilding pyscho hes not being an arrogant basta*d but a sensible basta*d. Would i shoot someone who confronts me for my money holding a meat cleaver, easy for me to say yes but put in that situation i dont know, maybe i would shoot him in the knee caps then ring the cops:hmm: I would have to weigh up the good and bad, the good is i would stop him in his tracks the bad is i would be charged for injurying another human being even though it was self defence, the law in NZ is your more than likely be charge for protecting yourself.

Are americans allowed to carry guns on them, we all know the US is the gun tottering nation, if you have a gun licence does this allow americans to be able to carry a magnum 45 etc around with them?

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

i meant if the thug has the shotty if the homeowner has the shotty & comes face to face with a knife weilding pyscho hes not being an arrogant basta*d but a sensible basta*d. Would i shoot someone who confronts me for my money holding a meat cleaver, easy for me to say yes but put in that situation i dont know, maybe i would shoot him in the knee caps then ring the cops:hmm: I would have to weigh up the good and bad, the good is i would stop him in his tracks the bad is i would be charged for injurying another human being even though it was self defence, the law in NZ is your more than likely be charge for protecting yourself.

Are americans allowed to carry guns on them, we all know the US is the gun tottering nation, if you have a gun licence does this allow americans to be able to carry a magnum 45 etc around with them?

Perhaps you have seen too many Hollywood films which glorify firearms for the wrong reasons and villify them for the wrong reasons. Here is a link to the firearms laws by state: http://www.packing.org/state/ . You can investigate the laws at your leasure.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Are americans allowed to carry guns on them, we all know the US is the gun tottering nation, if you have a gun licence does this allow americans to be able to carry a magnum 45 etc around with them?

Yes. Would you bother? Probably not. You can count on one hand the # of times I've bothered to carry - usually only to protect the rifles I was transporting to and from the shooting range. Out in the National forests, I just usually open carry. I always keep one loaded firearm around when shooting my rifles incase someone would like to relieve me of my possesions forcebly.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

...It is purely a defense weapon and anyone that thinks it can be used offensively in more than a crutch manner have never used one.....

Originally Posted by Tchocky

If you're mugged by someone with a pistol, then it's an offensive weapon. Any weapon can be used offensively.

That is why I say it is only a crutch. Due to Hollywood, a pistol also seems to carry a phycological super weapon mentallity along with it - something it is not.

Ok, through my limited experience of gun use, it's hard enough to hit someone without worrying about tricky bits of anatomy. Especially in a tense situation. There are posters online with much more experience, so have at it

Myth #1 is - you fall down and die when shot. Hardly. The people who fall down only do so phychologically since this is what they have seen in the movies and think that they are instantly going to die. THen you get to real life where Philly cops shot a suspect 32 times over about 20 minutes and he still was returning fire like nothing was wrong! The point is - if you don't hit anything vital, it is nothing more than a deep flesh wound.

Another example of Hollywood garbage - the Red Baron had his heart completely removed from his body by the shot that killed him, yet he still managed to land his plane and talk to the British troops before dying. Yet Hollywood wants you all to think that when shot, you drop to the floor instantly dead. Not the case.

No wonder people have a hate for firearms - Hollywood created them to be super weapons!