Guns, Guns Guns

A stupid question would be what's the difference between a gun, sword, bat, fist, or knife in a life and death situation that ultimately someone dies? Death is still death and murder is still murder. The point is a gun, sword, bat, fist, or knife can be a weapon. All items that listed previously are tools, the intent of the person wielding those tools determines the outcome in a crime for the most part.

Yes, I am being rhetorical...if I was sitting on the jury I would be asking what was the intent. I would want to know what circumstances led up to death. So, Tenshinai it's stupid and dishonest to use scenarios that happen in real life and ask what you would do. Bravo, Daryl for answering the question truthfully. Their is no right or wrong answer. So I repeat the question to you Tenshinai. Scenario: 3 armed attackers storm the house (a home invasion) late at night, they are threatening you family with vile intent and mayhem. (I am assuming that you are married and have a child or children.) What would you do without a weapon but your own martial skills?

Tenshinai wrote:

smr wrote:I would die to protect my family....how far would you go to protect your family? Would your cherished anti gun beliefs stand the test of watching your own daughter or grand daughter being raped and killed before your very own eyes? I can not answer that question for you but please pause and reflect honestly on what you would do in this situation. I know I am stupid and dishonest! LOL!

Daryl, I asked for answer to the question not to restate your belief. What would you do in that situation. I would have done what the grandfather did and shoot at the home evaders. They were planning on raping his granddaughter and killing his family. They brought weapons and were intending to do harm.

Edited: Teshinia, I offer my apologies for my sarcasm and being a little irked about the comments. I should have risen above the comments and stayed on topic!

A dishonest and stupid question deserves no answer.

Spacekiwi wrote:Guns can do better, yes, but better for both sides, which is the problem. And if they are the ones who stay when knowing you are home, arent they the ones also more likely to have guns as well? And if they are bringing guns into a home invasion/robbery, that means they will probably not flinch at using them. So you having access to guns means that they also have acces to guns, and you get a escalating situation, whereas a lack of guns means you and them have to get close to fight, giving both parties a more cautious outlook on interactions, as you/they won't do something stupid/reckless on the assumption you/they can fire first and avoid injury.

Zakharra wrote: Guns can do that better and most burglars will leave if they know there is someone in the house with a gun. A certain subset will not leave, but they aren't the majority and for the most part arms (most people think of guns, but arms is -any- weapon) are something people can use to defend their homes. If someone invades my family's home to steal from it, if I can, I will use what weapons I have to dissuade that person(s) from doing what they are. Probably by shooting them if I can or sticking them a few times with a sword or two and making them wait until the police can show up. Either way I would do my best to make sure they regret setting foot in our house.

As it is though, most burglars will try to strike when no one is home specifically because they don't want a confrontation.

If someone is bringing a gun into a home robbery, it's likely they have something in mind besides just robbery. Most burglars don't want to meet with the home owner, hence why they try to rob homes when no one is home. In business robberies like convenience stores, many times guns are used, but to intimidate the story clerk/cashier person. Many times when confronted by that person who has a gun, the perp tries to flee rather than shoot.

Back on the home robbery though; if someone comes into my house with a gun, I am going to assume they intend to kill us and possibly rape my daughters. With that in mind, I'd have to be retarded as hell to not resist them in whatever way I could. Heck, if someone came into my home with a knife and was intent on violence and/or robbery and I could get to our hunting rifles, I would blow a hole in that person without hesitation. The guns are there for hunting and our home protection. We got our guns legally, most criminals don't get their legally, so what escalating situation are you talking about?

It sounds like you are saying I shouldn't have any guns or any that can be easily accessed because there's an off chance the criminal might get to it? I'm sorry, but to hell with that. I'm not going to limit the defenses of my home based on what a criminal might be able to get a hold of in my home/. By that reasoning, I should let them to anything out of fear of escalating the situation. Pfft, any criminal caught in my house is a corpse just waiting to fall down. We take home defense seriously here, criminals beware.

Please keep it polite. The question was not dishonest or stupid.
To pare it back to basics if I had home invaders about to do serious harm to those I loved I would use whatever weapons I had access to in order to stop them. If I had a gun available I would use it and sleep well hence forth. A sharp sword may even provide more personal satisfaction.
My qualifier is that in our society the likelihood of three obvious losers having guns and breaking into my home is quite low for a number of reasons.

Firstly as stated it is difficult for low lives to get guns, hardened professional criminals and upright citizens for different reasons yes possible. Neither is likely to be using their guns for petty and easily proven crime.
Secondly a welfare state removes the basic motivation of having to rob to survive so we have less such crime.
Thirdly it is unlikely in my case as they would have to venture about a kilometre up a one way public road, through my locked boundary gate then 200 metres up my private drive just to get to my house.
A possible fourth point is that from the photos and profiles of these three I'd put my money on the 19 year old Aussie shiela to sort them herself anyway. In our news yesterday a would be rapist jumped one such on her way home from the gym. Not likely to do it again on his release from hospital.

Tenshinai wrote:

smr wrote:I would die to protect my family....how far would you go to protect your family? Would your cherished anti gun beliefs stand the test of watching your own daughter or grand daughter being raped and killed before your very own eyes? I can not answer that question for you but please pause and reflect honestly on what you would do in this situation.

Daryl, I asked for answer to the question not to restate your belief. What would you do in that situation. I would have done what the grandfather did and shoot at the home evaders. They were planning on raping his granddaughter and killing his family. They brought weapons and were intending to do harm.

A dishonest and stupid question deserves no answer.

Thank you Daryl, I went and edited the post and offered an apology. You are correct, I should have risen above it.

Assuming the criminals will still commit the same crime with or without a gun, would you prefer the criminals are armed with guns, or bats?

Your second paragraph shows the escalation I was talking about. you werent thinking of getting rid of them, you werent thinking of stopping them, you werent thinking of arresting them until the police arrived, you werent thinking of hospitalising them, your reaction was kill.

Im not saying you shouldnt have the opportunity to have guns, only the fact that America among others seem to need a serious need to gun law reform and tightening as guns are too freely available, and that your laws arent enforced well enough, leading to a situation where you believe you need a gun to protect you, because of the possibility that others are likely to have guns. They have guns in case you do, you have guns in case they do.

Zakharra wrote:]
If someone is bringing a gun into a home robbery, it's likely they have something in mind besides just robbery. Most burglars don't want to meet with the home owner, hence why they try to rob homes when no one is home. In business robberies like convenience stores, many times guns are used, but to intimidate the story clerk/cashier person. Many times when confronted by that person who has a gun, the perp tries to flee rather than shoot.

Back on the home robbery though; if someone comes into my house with a gun, I am going to assume they intend to kill us and possibly rape my daughters. With that in mind, I'd have to be retarded as hell to not resist them in whatever way I could. Heck, if someone came into my home with a knife and was intent on violence and/or robbery and I could get to our hunting rifles, I would blow a hole in that person without hesitation. The guns are there for hunting and our home protection. We got our guns legally, most criminals don't get their legally, so what escalating situation are you talking about?

It sounds like you are saying I shouldn't have any guns or any that can be easily accessed because there's an off chance the criminal might get to it? I'm sorry, but to hell with that. I'm not going to limit the defenses of my home based on what a criminal might be able to get a hold of in my home/. By that reasoning, I should let them to anything out of fear of escalating the situation. Pfft, any criminal caught in my house is a corpse just waiting to fall down. We take home defense seriously here, criminals beware.

1) Ex soldier- I tend to want settle matters that are life threatening to me or the family. It's the military mindset of attack when a threat is perceived.

2) Never do an enemy a small injury. Never wound what you can kill. This is especially true with some crazy jury verdicts.

I grant that is wrong to kill as a Christian man. However, I do believe God would forgive me for defending my family because ultimately the Creator put my family under my care and responsiblity or at least I hope that.

Spacekiwi wrote:Assuming the criminals will still commit the same crime with or without a gun, would you prefer the criminals are armed with guns, or bats?

Your second paragraph shows the escalation I was talking about. you werent thinking of getting rid of them, you werent thinking of stopping them, you werent thinking of arresting them until the police arrived, you werent thinking of hospitalising them, your reaction was kill.

Im not saying you shouldnt have the opportunity to have guns, only the fact that America among others seem to need a serious need to gun law reform and tightening as guns are too freely available, and that your laws arent enforced well enough, leading to a situation where you believe you need a gun to protect you, because of the possibility that others are likely to have guns. They have guns in case you do, you have guns in case they do.

Zakharra wrote:]
If someone is bringing a gun into a home robbery, it's likely they have something in mind besides just robbery. Most burglars don't want to meet with the home owner, hence why they try to rob homes when no one is home. In business robberies like convenience stores, many times guns are used, but to intimidate the story clerk/cashier person. Many times when confronted by that person who has a gun, the perp tries to flee rather than shoot.

Back on the home robbery though; if someone comes into my house with a gun, I am going to assume they intend to kill us and possibly rape my daughters. With that in mind, I'd have to be retarded as hell to not resist them in whatever way I could. Heck, if someone came into my home with a knife and was intent on violence and/or robbery and I could get to our hunting rifles, I would blow a hole in that person without hesitation. The guns are there for hunting and our home protection. We got our guns legally, most criminals don't get their legally, so what escalating situation are you talking about?

It sounds like you are saying I shouldn't have any guns or any that can be easily accessed because there's an off chance the criminal might get to it? I'm sorry, but to hell with that. I'm not going to limit the defenses of my home based on what a criminal might be able to get a hold of in my home/. By that reasoning, I should let them to anything out of fear of escalating the situation. Pfft, any criminal caught in my house is a corpse just waiting to fall down. We take home defense seriously here, criminals beware.

Regarding guns in the UK, a novel was published a while ago called "To Hell In A Handcart" by the columnist Richard Littlejohn.

Although panned by the critics (and admittedly, not all that well written), there is a fair amount of truth in the book, especially the tendency of many (british) left-wing politicians and people in power to assume that because someone is a member of an ethnic minority, they should not be held responsible for their actions, an outlook which is simultaneously arrogant, racist and politically correct.

In the book, the main character shoots someone trying to break into his house and is promptly the target of a number of political opportunists trying to scapegoat him for their own gain. The story points out that such actions are ultimately significantly detrimental to maintaining a viable society.

It is also noted that killing an intruder with a pitchfork is less illegal than shooting them.
The moral of the story? Keep a pitchfork by the bed.

Interesting points. I'd agree that the law should be applied equally to all regardless of creed or origins. I'd also go further and say that being under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be no defence either. Another potential area of unfairness is that those of high social standing and wealth should not be able to buy their way out of trouble, by using expensive barristers. As it stands now if you commit a serious offence you had better be at the top or the bottom of society. The same thing applies to taxation.

The pitchfork point is probably relevant in that using a pitchfork (or sword) proves that the person was actually close and threatening you.

Michael Everett wrote:Regarding guns in the UK, a novel was published a while ago called "To Hell In A Handcart" by the columnist Richard Littlejohn.

Although panned by the critics (and admittedly, not all that well written), there is a fair amount of truth in the book, especially the tendency of many (british) left-wing politicians and people in power to assume that because someone is a member of an ethnic minority, they should not be held responsible for their actions, an outlook which is simultaneously arrogant, racist and politically correct.

In the book, the main character shoots someone trying to break into his house and is promptly the target of a number of political opportunists trying to scapegoat him for their own gain. The story points out that such actions are ultimately significantly detrimental to maintaining a viable society.

It is also noted that killing an intruder with a pitchfork is less illegal than shooting them.
The moral of the story? Keep a pitchfork by the bed.

smr wrote:I grant that is wrong to kill as a Christian man. However, I do believe God would forgive me for defending my family because ultimately the Creator put my family under my care and responsiblity or at least I hope that.

Riiight... So killing a buddhist, jew or atheist, that´s just fine then?

smr wrote:So I repeat the question to you Tenshinai. Scenario: 3 armed attackers storm the house (a home invasion) late at night, they are threatening you family with vile intent and mayhem. (I am assuming that you are married and have a child or children.) What would you do without a weapon but your own martial skills?

First of all, this is something that happens less than once a year here, WITHOUT firearms.
And less than once in a decade with firearms.
Making the whole question mostly irrelevant.

If i have no time to react, what happens is exactly the same as for you, one way or another you loose.

If there is enough time to react, then i have plenty of choices of weapons. My set of kitchen knives are quite effective when thrown for example, as they are all metal and rather heavy, and i know how to hit with them.

If unable to reach kitchen, i have my martial arts/training corner, which includes a 2m Bo-staff, which is a very nasty weapon to face when used well in a confined space, a pair of Sai-swords and Tonfa, either of which can be thrown if required, and while Sai may have neither edge or a real point, they´re heavy and very deadly if thrown correctly.

There´s some small throwing blades and shuriken as well, mostly more for fun than anything else, but shuriken have the advantage that you can throw many, VERY fast, and while they are meant to be a distraction, you really do not want 5 or 10 of them in your face.

And if i can´t reach that corner, which is unlikely since it´s only a few meters from my bed, then there´s my tool cabinet, and you really do not want to know just how well i can use screwdrivers to put someone out of a fight.

In the hallway, one of the umbrellas are strong enough to be used as a slightly unwieldy rappir, providing a very pointed argument in my favour.

In the living room, there are a number of books on my bookshelves that are suitable for use as throwing weapons. If you know how to throw books, they hit like a brick.

In another cabinet, there´s some bows and a crossbow.

And then there´s the fact that i´m perfectly capable of taking the gun from an attacker.
And that i am quite good with a pistol, just at the edge of being good enough to compete.

And i could probably list another hundred items here that i could use as improvised weapons, homes tend to be full of them.

smr wrote:Their is no right or wrong answer.

As you posed the "question" there can only be one answer. Which was why it was dishonest.

And you also fail to understand that i am in no way "anti guns"(quite the opposite). I am opposed to people being able to aquire guns easily and keep or use them unsafely.

Daryl wrote:Please keep it polite. The question was not dishonest or stupid.

Oh but it was, because it used an emotionally based question that you cannot answer "wrong" by the opinion of the one to ask, then use that to draw an extremely dishonest logic link to the sarcastic "cherished anti gun beliefs".


I could be just as disgusting and ask why he likes to murder people, or if his cherished belief in gun supremacy will remain when his daughter use one of his guns to commit suicide.

Just as disgusting and dishonest. Which is why i did NOT do so but rather just stated that it was not worth an answer.

Trying to equate home invasion+absence of guns to automatically mean family raped/killed and use this as an argument that cannot be opposed is exceptionally disgusting and dishonest when reality says that no such direct connection exists.

Using it even if such a connection DID exist would still be revolting.