What is Digg?Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Give the Ultimate Last Minute gift view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
440 Comments
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -37/+334"so you shot him?"
"yep"
"why?"
"ummm... rape?"
"good enough" - ekiller200, on 10/12/2007, -33/+171Sweet, I love living in Texas, now I just need to get myself a gun!
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -11/+124Yes. I, like a lot of people, tend to use 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' interchangeably. I am NOT talking about a machine gun, which is fully automatic. And while, yes, a law abiding citizen *can indeed* legally purchase a machine gun, they have to jump through hoops to do so, and machine guns are EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE*. You can't *touch* one for under $5k. The term 'Automatic' was coined by John Moses Browning after he invented the M1911 and the .45 ACP cartridge to go with it. ACP stands for 'Automatic Colt Pistol.' Also, the venerable M1911, one of if not THE most popular pistols in the world, has the official US Government designation "AUTOMATIC PISTOL, CALIBER .45, MODEL OF 1911." It is most assuredly semi-automatic.
I think that may be why people who don't know anything about guns whatsoever are the same people who favor gun control. They don't understand the terminology, nor do they bother to educate themselves. Which leaves the door wide open for hysteria and outright lies. All they know is, is that they heard the reporter on the 6 o'clock news say the word 'automatic', and because of ignorance, both on the part of journalists AND the non-shooting public, and they think that machine guns are everywhere. They are also falsely led to believe that a semi-automatic firearm can easily be converted to fire fully-automatic. Neither of which have even a SHADE of truth to them. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -12/+108@ekiller200
Your very first gun should (almost) always be a bolt action .22 rifle. Good news is, they are dirt cheap, too. Wal-Mart sells a nice Marlin for something like $119. Find someone who can show you how to use it safely, someone to 'take you under their wing.' Learn it. Use it. Respect it.
Then, after you have mastered that, you can go for something a bit bigger or a pistol. A good second rifle would be a nice Remington 700 or Savage 110 in either .308 or .270, the latter being a bit more powerful. For a first handgun, a revolver made by a reputable manufacturer (S&W, Colt, Ruger, Taurus) in 38 or 357 (a 357 can actually shoot either cartridge, but they generally weigh a little more). Automatics can be nice, but the learning curve for a n00b is a bit higher.
Good Luck, and Good Shooting! - crillbilly, on 10/12/2007, -41/+133Similar law in Florida that states that you need three pieces of evidence that points to them trying to attack, and/or rob, and/or rape you. Then again, all three pieces of evidence are your word against the attackers, and seeing that he is dead, you're all good! Go pro gun laws, down with hippies!
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -13/+103@lnf69: "Down with any hope that we might actually get a world where (sic) guns are not needed to protect oneself
Down with the hope that rapist and burglars are no longer a problem"
Yeah, good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for ya. In the meantime, I'll be shooting the rapists (unless the rapist is a chick, and she's hot) and burglars that attack me... so at least those ones will no longer be a problem. - dadrew1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+89To Quote PWIM, "Personally, I'd rather be robbed then kill or maim someone, but I guess I'm just a pussy."
This is great! Reread this after you dig it down... 'I'd rather be robbed *then* kill or maim someone'... personally I'd rather stop him *before* he robs me, but if you like to be robbed before you kill or maim someone, more power to you! You can just get your crap back then :-) - BissaStar, on 10/12/2007, -17/+79I think it's scary that until now we weren't able to properly defend ourselves legally.
- Sithlrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+63"I think a percentage of robberies (of course not all) are the result of social injustice and people becoming outcasts of society not necessarily by their own fault."
The stimulus may have been this so-called "social injustice". But the result is that these asshats CHOOSE to lead a life of crime. In this country, ANYone can find the means to go to school, read, learn, and GET A JOB if they so choose.
Is it fair that someone grows up in the slums? That's like asking "Does the world have an edge or does it go on forever?" Asking the question exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. That issue is choice. These folks need to choose to get a job or choose to get .357 caliber lead poisoning.
"To kill someone for unlawfully entering your house seems over the top to me. But as I said I'm not from the States and my ancestors weren't cowboys."
News flash: most of our ancestors weren't cowboys. Most were slaves, indentured servants, or immigrants looking for work and food. My own people came to the US with nothing, worked their fingers to the bone to build something that their children could build upon. I am the result of that ass-busting work, and my son will be the result of my work. You better believe I'd cap someone who was trying to take what we (Me and my forebears) have worked so hard for. - JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53Take this for what you will form someone who has worked in gun stores...
The best firearm for personal protection in the home is not a pistol, it is a shotgun.
One of my favorite experiences was when two little old ladies(one 69 the other 72) came in to get "something for protection". I sold them each a 20 ga. Remington 870. Two weeks later one of them(the 69 year old) came back and bought a 12 ga. Beretta because she wanted to shoot skeet. About a month after that the other lady(the 72 year old) came back and bought a .380 because she had gotten her CHL.
And yes, I live in Texas. - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+55Check out the Florida "stand your ground" law. It's similar, but you don't need to be in your house.
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+55"Isn't this why American homes tend to have their post boxes at the entrance to the garden rather than at the door. I wish we could do this here in Britain 'All door to door salesmen and Jehovah's witnesses will be shot' sign at the bottom of the driver."
No thats just a courtesy to the Postman so he doesn't have to get out of his truck. Its very xenaphobic to want to shoot ppl just for knocking on your door. - teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51You could, but you would be sued by your attacker / charged with second degree murder. Then you would be able to get a self-defense exception (and it is usually easy to produce enough possibility of self-defense to not be convicted). The problem is even though you would be off the criminal justice hook, you would be on the civil liability hook. This resulted in the adage: if you are defending yourself, make sure they are dead. Dead people do not sue. That law eliminates the ability of attackers to sue their victims when victims defense causes damage to the attacker. Funny, but it will probably save attacker's lives.
- Oracle95, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49They wouldn't be "more trigger happy." You've got to compare apples to apples. Just this week in Dallas, there was an incident where a business owner shot an intruder. That's how the network news reported it. But in Dallas, the police no longer investigate burglar alarms until the owner verifies an intrusion. (Laura Miller is a wonderful skank who has no clue what she's doing.) The owner pulled up to his business and three intruders opened fire. The owner returned fire and killed one intruder.
I guarantee that none of those three intruders were using legally registered guns in their names.
The scenario would have ended much differently had the gun control nuts had their way. These stories happen all of the time, but unless you're in law enforcement or work in news and see the parts of the stories that are deliberately buried, you rarely get the whole story. - knoit911, on 10/12/2007, -16/+60law supports shoot to kill without trouble. any state where you are not allowed to shoot (hurt, maybe kill in some instances) someone who is trying to break into your house or attempting rape/murder you is stupid (for lack of a better word) (there are some who don't allow at least on of them). for the only time in my life "Go Texas State"
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -31/+72"If it weren't for the Texans I'd move there in a second heartbeat."
Kinda foolish to base your entire location decision on a football team. I mean they got Schaub now, should be a lil diff and Mario Williams is more suited to their division than a Reggie Bush. Don't count the Houston Texans out just yet!! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+53"so you shot him?"
"yep"
"why?"
"ummm... rape?"
"good enough"
Thinking about it logically, if someone is in your house and they don't have a right to be there - back before this country became liberalised you could shoot them without reprocutions. Since the late 80's, however (and the Clinton administration of the 90's), people defending their homes against intruders have paid hefty fines, been sued , and actually done jail time for protecting their families.
I'm all for gun control, don't get me wrong - but you can't take the guns out of the hands of those who legally possess them before you remove them from the illegal owners who will do harm against others to further their own greed or sadistic behavior. - Oracle95, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41There's the whole problem in a nutshell. Lawyers. Look up the average "life sentence" for a murderer. Then read the number of home intruders who have successfully sued home owners. It's disgusting. I always hear bleeding hearts whine "Would you kill someone over a television?"
It isn't the television that has been taken away. It's your sense of security, the feeling of "home." In many ways, a home burglary is a rape of a different sort. When these lawyers get these scumbags off or allow them to financially "double dip" on their crimes, you only encourage the seedier parts of society to prey upon our system at the expense of decent law abiding citizens who work hard for what they have. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41"I'll be shooting the rapists (unless the rapist is a chick, and she's hot)"
Yeah.. you're saying that...until you get roofied at a party and wake up with Brittany in a huge, black strap-on hovering over you. - helmsb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+44Just remember "Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just get the bullets going really really fast."
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40@thomash: But 28,000 of those deaths were law-enforcement related. See? I can pull figures from my ass too!
@thefireland: I see your point, but because I see no link or evidence, I have to assume you're also pulling something from your ass. In Texas in 1997, there was a case where this chick was murdered on her front porch, and her next-door neighbor heard the commotion, came outside, and shot the murderer, then got sent away for life. Hey, it could have happened. I don't know. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33"You must not be black or hispanic... "
What are you talking about? Blacks and Hispanics can not be separated from Texas culture. Blacks, and especially Hispanics are part of most "white" families in Texas, either by blood or by marriage. And, having grown up in Texas, the first time I ever really was confronted with racism first hand was in Minnesota and then New Jersey. There I met people who not only used the N-word, but used it with real hatred behind it.
I think you people that have never been to Texas and are basing your negative opinion on popular stereotypes and George Bush (not a Texan) are really, in your own way, petty prejudiced bigots yourselves. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41@lnf69
Actually, "down with hippies" means up with earning a living, up with contributing to society, up with not expecting everyone else to pay your way, down with crying about how everyone should share their good fortune with you and most importantly up with showers.
@ekiller
"Sweet, I love living in Texas, now I just need to get myself a gun! "
You obviously don't live in Texas or you would already have a gun. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38Isn't this why American homes tend to have their post boxes at the entrance to the garden rather than at the door. I wish we could do this here in Britain 'All door to door salesmen and Jehovah's witnesses will be shot' sign at the bottom of the driver.
- fireball74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30I live in Texas and I don't own a weapon, but if there was a threat to my or someone else's life; I would have no problems pulling the trigger to kill. Most property can be replaced, but people can't.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33You should also remove Gang on Gang violence from those gun deaths.
They do not own legal guns, and they're shooting other criminals. Making guns illegal for ME will not stop THEM from getting them and using them.
My gun hasn't killed anyone. - pu-z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Uuhhh.. What about us who are into sports shooting? I own sports related firearms and they are safely tucked away in a safe.
- LocalDocal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29@theblooms
Thank you for the advice (even if it wasn't directed to me). Having never owned guns before or talked to anyone with extensive knowledge of guns, I invariably don't know much about them. Truth was that I never imagined that a rifle would be the best starting gun. I had always assume a handgun would be the best gun to start with (protection, ease of use, and learning curve). - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32@thomash - You aren't allowed to shoot somebody for taking your Garden Gnome. Stop being a dumbass. You are allowed to shoot somebody if you believe they are a threat to your personal safety or that of your family (or anyone you are currently responsible for).
There were also 31,938 vehicle deaths in the US in 2001. The includes ONLY passenger car, pickup and SUV deaths. BAN CARS NOW! - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28@thomash again - Your logic is flawed because you are completely ignoring the fact that places like Britain, since their firearm ban, have seen an astronomical increase in general violent crime such as rape, murder and assault. This is a direct result of the criminals knowing that the people won't be armed and that they themselves are because, well, they're criminals so they don't follow the law.
- mcicogni, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28This is not the point. "Civil" immunity means that if the defender wounds the attacker, the latter won't be able to sue the former for damages.
- mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26If someone is trying to rape someone, I think shooting would just top off the list of things you should be able to do to them
- goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30i wish we had this in arizona. There has been all kinds of home invasions here. Good job people of texas.
- paulrus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32@ clifyT:
"I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I believe a caviat to this should be that one has to sign a statement stating that you are willing to kill before owning a weapon. Kinda wonder how many rightwing christians would be willing to go on record stating they are willing to break one of their biggest commandments."
Uh, excuse me doofus, but there are no commandments against KILLING - there is a commandment against committing MURDER - BIG DIFFERENCE.
Killing someone in self defense or defense of an innocent is allowed within Christianity.
Maybe you should pick up a Bible before misquoting it? - Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34"The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker".
So as long as you are trespassing you can be killed without question, fantastic. - licoricewhip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25To TheBlooms:
Yes, my first was actually a Remington .22 bolt action. The thing was perfect for my size at age 12. It was the one I used at firearms training class. I strongly agree. The .22 with bolt is a perfect beginner rifle. - rsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Relax people, no one's going to get killed because they're going door to door selling girl scout cookies. You actually have to be a legitimate threat (that'd hold up in court, or at least convince the police) before the homeowner can legally justify the shooting. If you don't like that, then simply don't go around breaking into people's homes.
God bless Texas! Wish I lived there. My commie state (MA) requires I flee to the furthest point in the house, putting obstacles in the way as I flee and pleading for my life, and only at the last possible instant when I know I'm going to be dead can I fire back. Even then, they'll still take away my guns afterwards and proceed to prosecute me anyway. - Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26How many wives/husband/partners get raped, robbed, and/or murdered because the homeowner isn't able to defend themselves?
Look, I can make strawman arguments too! - RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@thomash
That's the problem with statistics. When suicide is included it adds 200% more gun related deaths to the figure. When you compare this to Britain, for example, it looks like "Oh my God its the wild west over here". But what you don't see unless it is broken down, is that people are killing themselves in Britain too. Its just that the gun is not their tool of choice. - Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22itazura, you're reading more into the law than what's there. You would have to prove in a court of law that someone trespassing had the intent to rob, rape, or murder you. If they're in your house, it's pretty easy. If they're walking across your yard, you have a bit of 'splainin' to do.
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@clifyt: If someone is going to kill you, and is coming at you in some way that leaves you in a position where you could shoot them in the chest, you do so. Then you run. If that first bullet doesn't stop them, shoot them again. Repeat the process until the attacker stops attacking. If they're dead, so be it. If not, they can get medical attention at some time in the near future, when you're out of danger.
- lbmouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@teadrinker
Dead people don't sue, but their families still do and the judgments awarded for wrongful death are usually much higher than assault. - clifyt, on 10/12/2007, -17/+34"I know how to use a gun, but I don't think I could kill another person. I could however wound them so that I may be able to get away."
Then you have no need to own a gun.
The only reason to ever fire a gun is to irrevocably end someones life. This is something people never seem to understand in police action shootings, WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST SHOOT HIM IN THE ARM!!! or some other gawddamn *****. No, the only time to ever open fire is to kill. Anyone that needs to be shot is already an animal, and you know the adage about a wounded animal being far more dangerous. Those folks are much more likely to do something to attempt to get your weapon, and probably hurt a lot more people than if you would have just ended it.
I owned a gun at one point, and I had a job where it was required. I had to make the same decision about being able to take someone elses life, and I decided I couldn't. Unfortunately, I decided this WHILE I was getting shot at :-)
So if you can't take someone else's life, you shouldn't own a weapon. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I believe a caviat to this should be that one has to sign a statement stating that you are willing to kill before owning a weapon. Kinda wonder how many rightwing christians would be willing to go on record stating they are willing to break one of their biggest commandments. And that was exactly what caused me to decide I couldn't kill. Everyone, saving those who have lost rights through previous criminal deeds, should have the right to own a weapon -- I just think people need to know what the responsibilities are before and not take it lightly. - BissaStar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Yep, exactly. I know how to use a gun, but I don't think I could kill another person. I could however wound them so that I may be able to get away. Hence why I am glad this law has passed. When your fearing for your life the last thing on your mind should be legal repercussions.
- nathanrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21God didn't make men equal... Colt did.
- Alphi1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@jdotter
To my understanding, it is pretty much accepted that the proper translation of the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment should actually be more accurately represented as "You will not murder", since technically "Thou Shall Not Kill" doesn't allow for a lot of things that most people would find acceptable: defending yourself or your family (from either man or animal), killing an animal for food, or even smashing a mosquito. - tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18The problem is this - law abiding citizens will abide by the law (by definition). So, if the law says, "You can't have guns", guess who will give up their guns? And guess who won't?
"Trust in the Lord, but keep your powder dry!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Skizmo, if you believe that's what this law is about, it's not Americans that are morons. It's you.
- Chupathingy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20"Personally, I'd rather be robbed then kill or maim someone, but I guess I'm just a pussy."
Wow, that's sporting of you. Let them rob you first, then kill or maim. Do you have to lead them? - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@LocalDocal
No problem, dude! I am glad to help. With a couple of clicks, you can find my real e-mail address and contact me directly if you wish. You can also go to packing.org and click on your state. There they have links to local people you get in touch with, along with updated information of the various gun laws in your locality. The vast majority of people on that board are very helpful and knowledgeable, and they can point you to a local gun club or shooting range where you will probably meet somebody who would be willing to mentor you.
@returnofmalv
Yeah, I've heard that before: from my best friend and even my wife! That's me holding my Cobray M-11/9. -
Show 51 - 100 of 441 discussions
