ford is a fool, thus is incapable of being owned in the traditional sense.

best just not to engage him at all.

You know nothing about menoutsede the 2 months I spend in SoF and the persona I choose to convey on these boards.

Judging me based on that time and making assumptions would be the act of a true fool.

But this is the Internet, sonic winning is the most important thing to you then you win!

Man, I challenge any of you to take a few weeks off these boards, and retreat to some forums that are intellectual in nature, and then come back. The level of immaturity, pettiness, and all around plain pathetic is pretty remarkable.

I mean ofcourse I'm the first person to post a false story on the Internet, so nuke's ownage of me via posting a link deserves to go in the hall of fame right? Wow. Grow up. The point of the thread remains, you all make me sad, the laf vs evo flufffest threads have ruined these boards, and your ability to hold an intelligent and respectful dabate. Think about that, I can't I'm to bust getting owned and being a fool.

And I realize that autocorrect is fluffing my posts up to a comical level, but my lact of caring is pretty substantial right now so deal with it.

I take you to be the kind of fool who goes around trying to convey personae on internet chat boards.

Guess I wasn't too far off the mark.

I suppose missed the part where you were trying to promote an intellectual debate. All I saw was anti-Hispanic and pro-gun copypasta.

The ironic part of your banter about me is your inability to look past your perceived racism. It was a good effort though. I am flattered as I don't even remember who the fluff you are and you have such strong feelings towards me. Thanks for the flattery.

And THIS is exactly why these forums are fluffing retarded. It's impossie to have a debate without peoe making it personal, changing the topic to who owned who, and fluff like that.

This thread is about guns, gun control, gun education, and gun laws. It is not about ahi is a bigger fool and who owned who the most. It's pahetic that every thread here turns into that, surely you can see that.

Comparing cars and guns is not a stretch, is insane. Cars are a tool which people in developed countries are more or less relying on to get through their day. Guns are, primarily, a tool for killing stuff. Removing cars would mean people would have to change quite a lot of their life style. Removing guns from the public, or atleast severely restricting their occurance, would only mean that gun enthusiast would have to bring their ass to a shooting range to do their hobby.

Why do you have 2 guns for self defense? Fancy yourself as a some kind of Rambo? :P

Who said anything about racism? All I pointed out is, given the writing style, anyone who takes that type of chain email as journalism is not terribly intelligent.

I really am sorry if you fall into that category, but it is not my fault.

No, I have my carry gun, and a shotgun. I would ideally use the shotgun in my house as it will not penetrate very much and endanger anyone other than who you are aming at. And I can't exactly conceal a shotgun if I wish to carry in public, so I have my Glock.

3 of my other guns are for hunting, along with my crossbow, and the remaining 3 guns are simply for fun. Don't underestimate the stress relief that is running through a few hundred rounds.


In no way do I think I'm Rambo, I don't even have an M-60!

The question is why are you so gun-ho (no pun intended) about this? No one has taken your guns away. You can keep your guns, but don't endanger the rest of us or your family by being irresponsible.

And yes keeping loaded guns in the reach of kids is irresponsible no matter how many fake stories you post.

Where did I say I kept guns in reach of my kids? If the kids are educated it is not irresponsible. This is my point. Education cuts down on the danger, recklessness, and such.

I have ppl comming at me from different directions onthis, and apparently you havnt read all the posts, because some ppl here ate talking about the metrics of elimination of all guns, and half my responces were to that mindset. Although I don't know why I am responding to you when you apparently arnt reading the entirethread before responding.

Maybe the gun in the previous house in the main story was in a place the kids of that house couldnt get to. Didn't stop the robbers from getting it and potentially using it on an 11 year old in the next house.

If no one is in my house all guns are locked up. My Glock is in a quick access safe anyways so the benelli is the only gun I put back into the main safe if no one is home. There are many responsible gun owners out there, I assure you I am not the only one. And with education that number could grow

So EVERY TIME you leave the house and every time you come home, you lock your shotgun up or take it out of the safe?

are you serious? I guarantee that is bullfluff. You lie about guns as much as you lie about knowing NA was a cheating alliance.

You have to be fluffting me...

You brought up the car analogy earlier in the thread, as misplaced as it was have you ever thought about why 12 year olds are not allowed to drive?

It's never a good idea to give kids access to weapons. I don't think it's a good idea to give the access to adults as well, but I'm pretty surprised that people with your views exist. "America" argument applies here I guess...

in the "news article" who else was rooting for the two armed and illegal immigrants?

...

Do you shower or brush your teeth after you wake up? It's called a routine. It's pretty basic a concept. My wife does the same.

Do you shower or brush your teeth after you wake up? It's called a routine. It's pretty basic a concept. My wife does the same.

I'm for people being able to own guns, 1. cops won't go around picking on people for no reason.

2. with all the people out there that rob places... it would lower that happening. muggings probly would only happen in dark allyways.

3. it might actually lower crime... alot.

I don't own a gun, probly won't. but I can see the good parts of letting people own guns.

There will always be people misusing guns, like there are people who drink underage, drive when they probly shouldn't, and using a gun without permit.

if all guns were made illegal, people would still find a black market for them and use them reguardless.

i find it funny that a florida resident (nuk) is heading the anti gun train here, your state has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. you must feel like an outcast.

no im a smelly hobo!!! or you would have me believe that :P

I personally can see your point about owning a gun. I have a diffrent opinia about it tough.

You are the type of showing off( i got that impresioa after you posted a made up story and you added some " i own 8 guns", "i`ll buy automatics just for fun"). IF you did this on an on-line forum i am sure that all your"friends/neighbors/workmates/people in your life" knows your guns history.

Now some of them will just feel insecure not owning a gun with you having 8 and appling for automatics. Generally that`s how you end up owning tons of weapons as a nation + seeing all the thiefs, rednecks , emigrants owning some.

On day, something, somewhere will go wrong. Maybe not at your place, maybe not at your friends place - but it will happen.

A Neighbours fight over the dog poo, a bullied teenager at school, some kids playing with dad`s guns etc.

And at that point you and other like you will be the victim of your own ignorance. And that`s how you end up with :



Owning a gun for safe purposes might be ok. However, you should not end with a tank in your front yard and a nuclear silo in the back-one just for fun.

Here a man was sentenced to jail after stabbing non lethally a burglar. Two men forced in to jailed mans house in the middle of the night. The man woke up and went to see about the noises. When he encountered the burglars he was attacked and spraied with peper in eyes so he couldn't see. He then got in his hands something and stabbed the other burglar.

Court ruled the man to be sentenced to prison because he should have noticed as a blind that the attacking person was not armed. (well he was armed with pepper spray but that doesn't count.)

The burglars got fined for few hundreds of euros. Far less what the owner of the house have to pay in damages.

This is really sickening. I hope the judge gets same treatment someday.

You force your way into a persons home, their sanctuary, and you deserve to be shot, right in the fluffing face.

Breaking into my house at night would be a terrible idea because I would do whatever it takes to protect my family.

With that said my shotgun load is defensive. First 2 rounds are rock salt, next 2 are buck shot, final is a slug.

Breaking into a house in a place with virtually no guns means neither side ends up dead and the person is just caught later. Breaking into a place with lots of guns simply means any robber who wants to will have a gun.

You are right because no one can stab anyone these days. Wait, I have been stabbed to the end of a punctured lung and cracked rib in a robbery. And many home invasions and murders are commuted with knives annually.

Weird, I'll keep my gun. At this point it is impossible to disarm a country such as the US. It just isn't pratical, regardless of my beliefs.

That being said, as I have stated before, only 25% of my wePons are for specifically for defense. The other 75% are for recreation.

The debate of guns or no guns is a stupid one. Education and reasonable regulation is the answer.

i have no guns, but if you break in here, there is a good chance i'll kill you and you'll be lucky to avoid ending up on the BBQ. i think animals are a good source of meat and i hate to see meat go to waste.

I am implying that robberies with no guns involved end up in death a lot less often. No facts to back that up but it seems common sense :P

much easier to just break in when nobody is home. but i don't think criminals are too smart because it's easier to just get a job. find something that helps people to do the things they want to do and they're probably willing to pay money for it.

Your home is your castle; you should be able to defend it.

In the case of the homeowner jailed for stabbing a burglar, I daresay that even US state's requiring retreat would be hard-pressed to say that the home owner did not have the right to stab the burglar.

I don't like to disparage other countries' court systems (where we know that the rules are equal for everyone and they try to fairly apply the laws to everyone), but jail time for the home owner in that case? The man deserves an award for civic service (for teaching a person to not burglar), not a trip to jail.

After a burglar pepper sprays a homeowner in the eye, whatever comes next is solely the responsibility of that burglar. You do the crime, you pay the consequences (whatever they may be and whenever they may be). The homeowner did NOTHING wrong in this case. With regard to cases like this, grow up Europe...GROW UP!

Not trying to be offensive, just express how much I disagree with the homeowner being charged.

Completely agree Angel1.

If i was in the guys shows I would do what ever in my power to protect my home and those in it. Hell, If someone broke into my house and threatened my GF Id go completely Berserk to protect her.

I got stabbed protecting my wife when some douche tried to jump us. Stupid me focused on beating the shot outta him while his friend came up behind me, stabbed me, then ran away.

I was drunk, leaving a bar in downtown Charlotte so I was not carrying, else there would of been two dead flufffluffs and that much less crime.

Dude that stabbed me is doing 15-20. Other guy, the one I was fighting, is doing 5-10. He was taken to the same hospital as ms, lol atleast I got one if them. My wife was pissed at menthough because this was 3 weeks before our wedding.

Well, it's a good thing you weren't armed, as everyone came out alive, and no innocent people were killed. There was a bar fight by my house a year or two ago, a guy that lived above the bar drunkenly punched an out-of-towner who hadn't done anything to the guy, ended up knocking the guy's head into the curb and killing him, he's now doing at least 5 years for homicide. I'm not saying you didn't have a right to defend yourself, but when you start a thread that mentions the words "illegal" or "immigrant", you're pretty much announcing to everyone that you don't trust foreigners.

Lol you guys are dumb. I copied and pasted that title. I have nothing against immigrants. My highschool was majority Hispanic, then African American, then Caucasian as a distant third. I don't give a fluff about race, Paz people are lazy people, criminals are criminals, and productive citizens are productive citizens, their race means nothing.

Your assumptions are incorrect and frankly offensive.

But hey, this is the Internet. You notice that I didn't name the race of the two that attacked me?

As for me not being armed, you are missing y point. My pout isrhat I was not ALLOWED to bs armed because of restrictions, and because of those restrictions I got stabbed.

Not don't genome wrong, more times than not the rules against carrying while drinking are very good ones, but in my case they were not. Sure, no one was killed but I was fluffing stabbed for nothing dude. Trust me, I would of rather shot two criminals than get stabbed. Any day of the week. A punctured lung and cracked ribs are not pleasnt injuries to recover from.

fluff autocorrect damnit.

Lol you are trying to blame the fact that you werent armed on you getting stabbed?

And you think that only sometimes is it a good rule to not have guns while drinking? -_-

All I can say is that you see things way too black and white.

we dont expect people who arent allowed to own guns to understand. you grew up being taught that guns are bad. i dont fault you for your ignorance.

I will no longer respond to you after this post, locket, because your basic reading comprehension is pretty terrible.

"More times than not" and "sometimes" have very different connotations. I admitted that most of the time they were good laws, and then presented my situation j which i feel that those rules endangered my life, a rare situation at that. Don't twist my words like this is a laf vs evo thread, I'm not interested in your bullfluff.

And yes, I was 100% stabbed because I wasn't armed. If I would of shot the guy assaulting my wife my attention would not of been grabbed for long enough for his friend to jump me from behind. Shooting someone, and engaging someone in a fist fight, are very different scenarios.

Maybe you should think about Europe beeing the Grown ups ...

Altought i agree with you on the homeowner but this thread is about somethig else.

And I guess if you're able to bypass laws in this little path of land you call your own, surely society shouldn't mind if you beat your wife in it, rape children or produce drugs in it. It's "your own castle", right?

I think being put in a situation should give one less punishment for commiting crimes like this, given the transgression of the burglars and the situation where you "have no where to run to". But in no way it should allow the owner to impose any level of violence as he or she see fit.



"Teaching not to burglar", really? What kind of an ignorant stand is that? The burglar is a fluffing human beeing as well. Did it ever occur to you that the person doing this may be in a situation where you yourself would also turn to burglaring? No, you just rather comfortably but him in some bad guy generalization removing all those human rights you would normally give people.

And what about the owner? He stabbed a guy, right? We can't have people doing that. Someone ought to shoot him to teach him not to stab people. Perhaps you think that the guy that stabbed mrford should also get an award, since he taught mrford to not give people a beating resulting in a hospital visit?



Being pepper sprayed probably invoced a lot of stress yes. As I wrote above, the situation should give lower punishment than it normally would. But by pepper spraying it would seem to me that the burglars wanted not to hurt the owner, but to incapacitate, which clearly failed. The burglars at least prepared to try and lessen the violence involved in their crime. They wanted valuables, not blood on the hand. That can't be said for the owner. Would be interesting to know if the burglars retaliated, since it's not mentioned I would guess they did not, and if so I'd say the owner deserves harsher punishment, because stabbing someone is worse than commiting burglary in my book.



So you're either implying that you think that you have the right to pass death sentences on the fly, or that one double murder is somehow less serious than whatever those guys tried to do to you (rob you?).



From your point of view, yes. Most people not having any reasons to take sides would surely disagree though. It wasn't really "for nothing", since you were giving the guy his friend enough of a pounding to go to the hospital. In the same way that you escalated violence towards his friend, which I'm not blaming you for, he did to you.

You hit the nail so well with your story for this debate. But not towards the stance that you argue. Violence can easily escalate. Higher restrictions on guns is one way of lessen this and limit how far it goes. It's just too bad we can't restrict knifes, and indeed fists and legs, as well. If no one could threat anyone in any way, many crimes would simply disappear. Now, it's not practical since the costs of cutting of everyones legs and arms would be so much more than the gains. Restricting guns though, thats a pretty cheap cost compared to the gains, even if they are also far less.



Yep, and we pay for our ignorance with a far less risk of being killed or losing loved ones. Or wait...

it actually disgusts me that people think someone should be able to enter your home and steal your stuff, endanger you and your family (fatally or non fatally) and you should let them do it because causing them harm is wrong.

absolutley disgusting. people like you are whats wrong with this world.

if someone in need comes and takes from me, and that causes me to be in need, does that give me the right to come and take from you?

No one is saying that Pain. I argue that one crime does not allow a counter crime, or in other words that people are not allowed in passing arbitrary punishment on someone commiting a crime without taking their own punishment for commiting a counter crime. I wouldn't just sit by if someone went into my home and watch. I would either flee or put up a fight. However, if I fought, I would go for incapacitating the burglar instead of causing a maximum harm. It may include injurying the burglar though, especially if threatened. The only differance between us is that I'm not a self centered fluff, blind to anyone elses perspective. I would thus be more likely to "accept" punishment for it from society.



...and your stance disgusts me. People like me is what's wrong with the world? I have commited no crimes (not counting stealing some candy when I was <10yo and stuff that most people do, like occasionally passing a speed limit). I want to minimize pain and suffering for ALL parts included, how that makes me bad from your perspective is beyond me. Meanwhile, you yourself act like some kind of sadist who'd like to increase the suffering of those you can categorize in a certain way.



This is not what I'm arguing, but it's pretty close to what you are, with the only differance of to whom you should be able to commit the counter crime on. If someone commits a crime to someone, I argue it DOES NOT warrant some kind of right to commit a counter crime. Not versus other people (including me), as in your rethoric question, nor towards the offender of the original crime.

And yet that issue was brought up to show Europe's skewed perspective on this issue.

Europeans would have us ban guns...in a nation where guns are pervasive and not easy to track down. You would have us leave the law-abiding populace unarmed against armed criminals. You would have us leave it to police to protect us when the police can (the vast majority of the time) only respond AFTER a crime has been committed. You would leave us at the mercy of criminals.

Let me give you our clear and unequivical answer: NO!

I do not begrudge those nations that have chosen to do away with guns. I may question the policy and why they chose to do it and the logic behind it, but I do not begrudge the nations for doing so. On that note, we'll go on having our gun rights enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.

We'll go on being able to answer the call of police and government officials when they need volunteers to seach wilderness areas filled with potentially dangerous wildlife. We'll go on being able to put a round in someone trying to harm us.

You seem to think that it anyone ends up dead, that's a bad thing. Not everyone holds that view. Once you decide to committ criminal acts such as assualt or burglary, then you take your life into your own hands; if you die for your actions, then that saves us the cost of a trial. Innocent person live, criminal dies; we all go home happy and healthy.

You're missing the point entirely. It's not crime-counter crime, it's crime-self defense. Actions that may be a crime in one circumstance may simply be self-defense in another. Self-defense is not a crime, it's a human right. We're not letting people do despite them having committed a crime, we're saying that there is no crime when you act in reasonable self defense.

As to beating your wife in your home, I am disgusted by that statement. The wife has a right to be in the home; a burglar does not. More on this when I get back from work.

I'm sorry Sifos, but your beliefs are a bit too idealistic for te real world. I have a little different viewpoint.

I will do whatever it takes to protecty wife, my kids, my family, and my property. If you attempt to harm any of those you should expect an appropriate ammount of couture force. It really is that simple.

I'm not running around sealing vigalante justice as you seem to be implying my goal is. K am not trying to dispense justice in responce to a crime. But if in the moment, you pose a threat to those I love, you damn well better believe I will defend them. That is pretty basic, and a complete different ideal than you seem to hold.

Nomfluffing way would I ever stand back and let something happen to my family because of some skewed sense of right and wrong like you seem to have. It is my JOB to protect them in the moment, and let the "law" dispense justice after the fact.

In my personal experience, the best way to donthis "protecting" is to eleminate or incapacitate the threat as quickly as possible, otherwise the situation could escalate in an unfavorable manner. A gun is the best way to do this. It's not like I'm going to dump an entire magazine into the intruder or assailant, and it's also why y shotgun is loaded with a defensive loadout with less lethal sock salt rounds.

Justice isn't the goal, neutralizing the threat as fast as possible is.

@Angel

the discussion went south.

I was saying that you don`t need a "nuclear arsenal" in order to defend you home against a thief. I also said that owning so many guns as a nation will turn up against you sometimes.

You are radical - you "somehow" agree with the death sentance for all the thiefs. I don`t. Of course i would kill my self if a thief towards me with a knife or another gun. But that`s not always the case ... maybe less than 10%.


I don`t know the law is US but i do know that the law is diffrent from state to state. However you don`t have the rights "over" thiefs life in the moment he entered your "sanctuary".

^ educate yourself


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Don't ever tell someone to "educate yourself" then post a wiki link lolwiki