• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

StankApe said:
I would say that the odds of a well armed,body armored person becoming a home burglar is less than ANY burglar being sufficiently able bodied in the butt kicking department. Body armor costs money, lots of money. Those kinds of people rob banks. street criminals rob houses
Click to expand...

Becoming skilled in unarmed combat takes money and training, those kinds of people usually don't invade homes. However, guns can empower the most cowardly, undisciplined and weakest of criminals.
 
Kilaak Kommander said:
Or a burgler who is armed and who had no intention of using said firearm unless faced with armed opposition. Or a burgler who arms themselves with your firearm.

Any burgler worth their salt will wait until the home is unoccupied anyway. I'm reminded of a friend who keeps all of his guns in a safe aside from one handgun he kept hidden for home defense. His house was robbed while the family was away. The only gun stolen was the home defense gun.
Click to expand...

well that's just bad gun ownership there.... why leave it out when you are away?



as far as home invasions go, it happened at my house not 6 months ago. If my brother had still lived here, I wouldn't have been surprised if he had blown the dumb kids away. They had a gun, and had pistol whipped a homeowner jut an hr before they hit my house, they scampered off without harming anyone luckily. But had they been tweakers instead of kids, who knows how it might have gone down.
 
StankApe said:
I agree with both of those. There is a problem with enforcing the 2nd one though. as pointed out by others, very few people with mental problems actually seek treatment, or have ever been treated.

anybody know how many of the school and mass killers had a record of mental treatment?
Click to expand...

I know. But put laws in place for those that do. As I said, it's something..

Status quo is not the answer.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Becoming skilled in unarmed combat takes money and training, those kinds of people usually don't invade homes. However, guns can empower the most cowardly, undisciplined and weakest of criminals.
Click to expand...

derp!

lots of ex-military out there, you saying none of them have become drug addicts and robbed houses for quick cash?

This little silly Disneyland you live in sounds awesome! too bad it's a complete fabrication.
 
I just had this thought...

Could you imagine if Fred Phelps church picketed the children's funerals?
 
StankApe said:
derp!

lots of ex-military out there, you saying none of them have become drug addicts and robbed houses for quick cash?

This little silly Disneyland you live in sounds awesome! too bad it's a complete fabrication.
Click to expand...

You believe most ex-military out there are experts in hand-hand combat? That's a silly movie you're living in.
 
JihadJane said:
What's a "home invader"?
Click to expand...

A situation where criminals, usually armed with guns, just barge into a home and hold people at gunpoint while they rob the house. Sometimes they just shoot the residents right away and rob the place. Gun nutters think that owning a gun prevents this kind of thing from happening. I guess home invaders like to give gun owners time to unlock the safe, unlock the safety mechanisms and arm themselves.

My personal solution to preventing home invaders is to lock the doors.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
You believe most ex-military out there are experts in hand-hand combat? That's a silly movie you're living in.
Click to expand...

why do they have to be an expert? i can kill you with my bare hands due to some very basic techniques I learned in my field artillery job in the army.

That Jean Claude van Damme image of the military you have is pretty dang funny.

Pacific Northwest, home of the supreme soviet
 
StankApe said:
why do they have to be an expert? i can kill you with my bare hands due to some very basic techniques I learned in my field artillery job in the army.
Click to expand...

Doubtful.

That Jean Claude van Damme image of the military you have is pretty dang funny.

Pacific Northwest, home of the supreme soviet
Click to expand...

Your view of "deadly techniques" is cute.
 
thaiboxerken said:
A situation where criminals, usually armed with guns, just barge into a home and hold people at gunpoint while they rob the house. Sometimes they just shoot the residents right away and rob the place. Gun nutters think that owning a gun prevents this kind of thing from happening. I guess home invaders like to give gun owners time to unlock the safe, unlock the safety mechanisms and arm themselves.

My personal solution to preventing home invaders is to lock the doors.
Click to expand...

WRONG!

in my state a home invasion is defined as :a burglary of an occupied dwelling.

that's it,though sometimes it is similar to what you described
 
thaiboxerken said:
A situation where criminals, usually armed with guns, just barge into a home and hold people at gunpoint while they rob the house. Sometimes they just shoot the residents right away and rob the place. Gun nutters think that owning a gun prevents this kind of thing from happening. I guess home invaders like to give gun owners time to unlock the safe, unlock the safety mechanisms and arm themselves.

My personal solution to preventing home invaders is to lock the doors.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Is that common in the US?
 
thaiboxerken said:
So you believe. I don't equate the ability to kill as the most important measure of effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. But killing an intruder is undoubtedly effective. Most non-lethal weapons don't actually incapacitate the target, they just make it easier to subsequently physically dominate the target. And that works well for police, for example. But it doesn't work nearly as well if you're physically weak: you can't follow through.

A steel door, steel framed door with dead bolt lock is probably quite a bit more effective at stopping a home invader than a gun.
Click to expand...

That does nothing to stop someone coming in a window. It's also not an option for people who rent.
 
What does it say when some of the arguments in this thread show up in an article on The Onion?

“It’s my God-given right and a founding principle of this country that I be able to own a [piece of metal that launches other smaller pieces of metal great distances, one after the other], and if a few deaths here and there is the price we have to pay for that freedom, then so be it,” said Lawrence Crane of nearby Danbury, CT... “Sure, it’s sad that a few kids died, but it’s far better than the tyranny that would result if the government came and took away all our [mechanical contraptions that make a lot of little pointy chunks of metal go through the air fast]. Can you even imagine what kind of horrible world that would be?”
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
Neither do I. But killing an intruder is undoubtedly effective. Most non-lethal weapons don't actually incapacitate the target, they just make it easier to subsequently physically dominate the target. And that works well for police, for example. But it doesn't work nearly as well if you're physically weak: you can't follow through.



That does nothing to stop someone coming in a window. It's also not an option for people who rent.
Click to expand...

Depends on where you rent and windows can be re-inforced. Guns are hardly the most effective way to stop home invaders. A locked door does wonders.

Non-lethal weapons can easily incapacitate a target, if used correctly and with good training.
 
they got in my house by the garage door, they had an opener and were driving up and down streets pushing it and waiting for garage doors to open. needless to say i have since altered the frequency settings from the factory default
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom