Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And of course iwith one of these you can sleep soundly and at ease:

I'LL TAKE A DOZEN NINJA CATS!!!

Are you cash only?

In all honesty, I have been thinking about getting a revolver, but that would be for sport only. I am more of a spear and arrow guy truth be told, but there is something quite intriguing about a nice revolver.

Ahtman wrote:Just because Americans have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean that it is required. While I am sure this is understood, it is being treated as if it is the other way around. There seems to be a bit of "well I don't need one" kind of attitude going about. Well good for you, you don't have to have one. I don't own a firearm, I don't have the need for one.

..do you have anything worth teaing ? Just...curious... is all.Yes. Yes..just curious.

..your address was what again ?

..do you have anything worth teabagging ? Just...curious... is all.Yes. Yes..just curious.

..your address was what again ?

Fixed that for you... yes... fixed that.

[quote=Wrexasaur
West Oakland is known for pot growers, and near a place I lived, there was a warehouse being used to do just this. I am talking about a serious operation, not small beans and rice pancakes status. Anyway, this guy grew pot, a gang broke in while toting AK47's and Tec 9's... the guy was dead before he had a chance to get his gun. End of story.

So the fact that criminals will inevitably have access to better weapons, in my eyes at least, means that no matter what, a homeowner with legal firearms is at a disadvantage by default. Having your cute little auto-glock is nice and all until you realize that you need illegal firearms to really be able to defend yourself. I will add that these cats with such weapons usually have absolutely no clue how to use them, but an AK47 is and AK47, and you will be hard pressed to out-shoot that with some buckshot.

Not sure really, but a .38 might be nice. I wouldn't mind something a bit more powerful, but a simple reliable revolver is all that I would really want.

I was mainly making the point that this guy was supposedly prepared for that kind of "raid", and he still could not stop them from just filling him full of lead.

You are right that having a stick is better than having a rock, but I still think that there is a big difference between a group of guys with hardcore weaponry, and a family with a handful of shotguns and pistols. This situation is pretty out there, to be sure, but I still think that you are overestimating how much protection a legal gun can provide you.

1. I'll take a shotgun over an AK at short range.

At short range yes, but in general an AK is just a better weapon by far. The stopping power alone, and the ease of use (magazines and what have you) is more than enough to put it in an entirely different category of weapon... and you can bury them if need be .

2. You're basing the argument on drug dealers going after each other? Counterpoint. Mexico has very restructive gun legislation. Yet drug cartels are killing eaqch other off by the thousand with fully automatic weaponry, heavy machine guns, and grenades.

Mexico... yah... If I lived in Mexico, I would have freaking RPG's mate.

3. Its better to have a pistol and options vs. no pistol and no options.

In many situations, I would consider well beyond insufficient, but there is obviously truth to your statement regardless.

As the saying goes though, trying to open locks with your wang is usually a pretty impractical idea... keys are better for such situations.

Wrexasaur wrote:Not sure really, but a .38 might be nice. I wouldn't mind something a bit more powerful, but a simple reliable revolver is all that I would really want.

I was mainly making the point that this guy was supposedly prepared for that kind of "raid", and he still could not stop them from just filling him full of lead.

You are right that having a stick is better than having a rock, but I still think that there is a big difference between a group of guys with hardcore weaponry, and a family with a handful of shotguns and pistols. This situation is pretty out there, to be sure, but I still think that you are overestimating how much protection a legal gun can provide you.

Thats correct. However, it could buy me time to get the family out. I'm not exactly expecting to be attacked by Spetznatz. A stalker on the other hand-yes.

Indeed... indeed.

Exactly. If you stand by a wooden target when the hatchet throwers come, you're a dead man. Of course if you have ninja kitty then ninja kitty will have already gone back in time and kiled their fathers before they were born. You don't mess with ninja kitty.

Unless you're ninja puppy of course. Then ITS ON BABY!

This is more along Wrex's style... OOOOHHH RIGHHHHHhhhht!!!

LunaHound wrote:
Let me just say this.... if the society regarding unwanted intrusion = death , many criminals would be having 2nd thoughts before deciding to break in a house to steal a xbox instead of doing legit hard work.

The intruding man's sister want the katana guy charged?
I lol'd .

At the end of the day , criminals that decided to ignore their victim's rights already forfeit their own rights . Why are people so lenient just for being "humane" to let them have so much leeway?

The UK used to impose the death penalty for stealing anything worth more than a few shillings. It didn't stop crime. Instead, we got the expression, "You might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb."

Criminals aren't deterred by the magnitude of punishment, they are deterred by the chance of successful prosecution.

Wrexasaur wrote:Not sure really, but a .38 might be nice. I wouldn't mind something a bit more powerful, but a simple reliable revolver is all that I would really want.

Might I suggest the street howitzer...

And yes that is a real gun.

Kilkrazy wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
Let me just say this.... if the society regarding unwanted intrusion = death , many criminals would be having 2nd thoughts before deciding to break in a house to steal a xbox instead of doing legit hard work.

The intruding man's sister want the katana guy charged?
I lol'd .

At the end of the day , criminals that decided to ignore their victim's rights already forfeit their own rights . Why are people so lenient just for being "humane" to let them have so much leeway?

The UK used to impose the death penalty for stealing anything worth more than a few shillings. It didn't stop crime. Instead, we got the expression, "You might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb."

Criminals aren't deterred by the magnitude of punishment, they are deterred by the chance of successful prosecution.

I think I would have to agree with KK on this. I think you would just make the criminals more desperate. I don't think a person high on crack cares what the punishement is going to be. All he cares about is getting money for his fix. If he thinks that he's getting death if he's caught, he might think it better odds to kill whatever is in his way.

GG

http://www.holsters4guns.com/holsters/product/CQC-4100.html

Very nice holsters. The button on the side locks the gun so a criminal cannot disarm you by pulling your gun from the holster unless he knows to push the little button first.

They are really great for fast draws (like for comp shooting) and keep you safe from some thug going for your gun.

Lots of law enforcement officers are now using these.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, again I think people miss the point.

She did not mean death as in a death sentence carried out legally through a trial, she meant death as in if you break into someones house knowing you will probably die might make you think twice.

Granted, it won't stop all intruders from trying to obtain a Darwin like Mr. Rice did but it might make a few more of them think twice, especially the ones not tweaked on drugs.

Apparently Mr. Rice had 29 priors and got out of prison 8 months early. It is evident he had no concern about going back as it's obvious even with that many priors he had a slap on the hand. Apparently MD doesn't have a "3 strikes your out" justice system.

Fateweaver you are reading my mind!

*nod nod

Great minds think alike.

JEB_Stuart wrote:And yes that is a real gun.

Didn't see the pic the first time, but GODDAM!!! I want one... . Does it come with dum dum bullets? Good for taking out Giants and such, I have heard.

It looks like something you would carry in 40k.

Hehe, a 75cal revolver

Frazzled wrote:And Cuba is an excellent example of one with strict gun control.
And Stalinist USSR
And Nazi Germany.

The idea that the Nazis took away the guns of the citizens is a complete myth. The Weimar Republic had tight gun control laws, and these were liberalised by the Nazis under the 1938 Firearms bill, where the trade and acquisition of rifles and shotguns became completely open. This didn't change until the allies took control, at which point guns the Germans were completely disarmed, including policemen. Which society do you think was a better place to live, Nazi Germany or Ally controlled Germany?

The Soviets did increase gun control in the late 30s. But the class most directly targetted in the purges was military officers, they didn't just have access to guns, they had access to tank companies and infantry batallions. But they were still rounded up and executed. Because effective resistance is built around networks, secure cells, and political will. Once you have those things then getting your hands on some guns is child's play.

It's a fun game, to pretend that if government suddenly turned bad then you'd take your rifle and start a revolution. In this sense it's like the zombie apocalypse. And about as realistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:
Let me just say this.... if the society regarding unwanted intrusion = death , many criminals would be having 2nd thoughts before deciding to break in a house to steal a xbox instead of doing legit hard work.

Increasing penalties for crime have been show to have no effect of the rates of incidence. Increasing rates of conviction are a driving factor, once those get above around 30% you start seeing dramatic decreases in rates of offence. The other big factor is economic opportunities, unsurprisingly if you give people lawful ways to earn a decent living they're less likely to go into crime.

But there has been strong correlations shown between increasing penalties and escalations in the scale of the crime. If you're facing 10 years for break and enter, probably best to kill the witness, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. So yeah, your idea of homeowners killing burglars is unlikely to lower the number of burglaries, but very likely to increase the violence committed by burglars on homeowners.

At the end of the day , criminals that decided to ignore their victim's rights already forfeit their own rights . Why are people so lenient just for being "humane" to let them have so much leeway?

No, everyone has rights, and everyone should be accountable for any crimes they've committed. The burglar would be charged for break and entering, except he's dead so it's a little pointless. The homeowner is now being investigated to see if slaying the victim was lawful, and if it is deemed he was within the law he'll be fine (and the law is quite leniant in this regard).

Figured I'd update

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2009/09/new_details_in_hopkins_samurai.html

perhaps everyone who jumped and said the kid was great for doing it jumped the gun?

there is a lot more going on here... I think it's called bravado and looking for trouble.

for anyone too lazy to read... there was no break in... like I said could be the case

Alright, so there was no break in but the point is the man made an aggressive move toward the student. At that point the man became the aggressor. Self-defense is still self-defense.

DA has to prove the kid went looking to harm Mr. Rice. Nobody knows what would have happened if Mr. Rice had decided to turn and walk away but the fact is he didn't.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-sword-killing0917,0,16472.story

The kids story still stands. I think it was updated to reveal more detail once all the facts were known, not that the kid recanted. He told Rice to stop, Rice instead attacked the kid. It's not the kids fault he had the sword in his hand. He had 3 choices.

1) Run, which I'm sorry is not an option IMO

2) Drop the sword and try to subdue the guy with his bare hands, as that is the humane and non-excessive way meaning Rice would have had a chance to grab the sword and use it on the student

3) Defend according to instincts. Weapon in my hand? I'm going to use it. I didn't bring it for show and tell.

Hmm. This sounds more likely to go to court.

Fateweaver wrote:Alright, so there was no break in but the point is the man made an aggressive move toward the student. At that point the man became the aggressor. Self-defense is still self-defense.

DA has to prove the kid went looking to harm Mr. Rice. Nobody knows what would have happened if Mr. Rice had decided to turn and walk away but the fact is he didn't.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-sword-killing0917,0,16472.story

The kids story still stands. I think it was updated to reveal more detail once all the facts were known, not that the kid recanted. He told Rice to stop, Rice instead attacked the kid. It's not the kids fault he had the sword in his hand. He had 3 choices.

1) Run, which I'm sorry is not an option IMO

2) Drop the sword and try to subdue the guy with his bare hands, as that is the humane and non-excessive way meaning Rice would have had a chance to grab the sword and use it on the student

3) Defend according to instincts. Weapon in my hand? I'm going to use it. I didn't bring it for show and tell.

I agree , with the slash been INFRONT of the body , what does that tell?

Unless the intruder is blind or unless the intruder has no intention of backing out from seeing the katana
why is he slashed just once , in the front right?

My question is , why was the intruder there ? and why didnt he run?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. This sounds more likely to go to court.

You think so? I mean, the new reports indicate the kid was an idiot who went looking for trouble, but at the end of the day he was backed up against the shed door, and the guy lunged at him. What was he supposed to do?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. This sounds more likely to go to court.

Yeah and it will mean an acquittal. I'd love any DA in the world to get 12 people to agree that the kid became the aggressor. It is apparent that Mr. Rice did not try to retreat as he was slashed in the front thus corroborating the kids story.

It will only go to trial if the MD police feel he used excessive force for the situation at hand but good luck convincing 12 people the kid had alternatives when Mr. Rice became the aggressor and they have to all 12 agree the kid "went looking to even the score."

I wouldn't say for sure that it'll go to court, it just sounds more likely to do so now that we know the guy who was slashed hadn't broken into a house.

I'd be surprised at a conviction though, definitely. I think the kid still has too much backing him up for that.

I'm too lazy to look up MD law but in some states, like Tx, just being on someone property is enough to give you the right to defend yourself.

I'm not so sure the police will pursue a criminal trial as I'm sure they'd see the futility of it. I think they'll realize, as you put it, too much stacks favorably with the kid. Worst they could do is get him for excessive but when you have a weapon in your hand the last thing you are going to do is drop it.

Police have a little more leeway in those regards but if a cop has a gun on you and you run at him, even unarmed, he will shoot your ass dead as it's justifiable (and not just because he's a cop although that does hold SOME merit).

"the student was backed up to the exterior of a garage door when they said the suspect lunged and the student made a single swipe with the sword."

Self-Defense, case closed.

It's a shame others don't feel its that cut and dry John and will of course have to post 2 dozen more times why the intruder has rights even when his rights infringe on ours.

I didnt want to post this because when i saw it on TV , it was pretty disturbing ( it was a documentary on discovery channel where police were heavily lacerated before they can draw their gun from holster )
But i had a feeling a few of you seriously doesnt know how a split second can effect the whole situation
even if you are a police NOT TO MENTION if you are the victim from the intruder.

Have fun , hope it doesnt happen to your beloved ones btw.
So ya... if you want to take the time to ask if the intruder would like a cup of tea ( or milk and cookies since its late at night ) please go ahead.