AprenticeChemist Posted June 29, 2008 Author Posted June 29, 2008 Yes it only takes a second to charge my AK47, theres nothing wrong with having it ready to fire. Also most of the time actually I do keep my rifle near me. This is only if im home alone because that way I don't have to worry about accidently flagging my guests. And when I had my own place the rifle was right next to the bed. Like I said most of the time my guns are just amber instead of red. Like I said it was a pretty damn bad neighborhood, at least every other night you could hear gun shots ghetto bird and sirens. Its not like the worst neighborhood in the world but definatly not a good place. So if I was alone at home theres nothing wrong with having one in the chamber on those nights I got a bad feeling about something. Luckily the neighborhood im moving to is one of the nicest ones in town so im not to worried about having to use my firearms in self defense but they will stay in amber. And moonshot no one was really talking about war or killing people with our firearms. Also there are many other things guns are used for besides killing, I love just going out and shooting things that are not alive such as targets, some people shoot for competion, some people kill animals for food such in hunting, and sometimes its not our fault we might have to shoot someone. Sometimes a dumb crackhead trys to rob your house and has a weapon and you have to unload a few rounds into them. Granted I think your just a hippy fag but your entitled to your opinion. EDIT_ Thank you warez I meant to say something to frk but I forgot as I was typing it up. Most people do get the terms mixed up tho to gun enthusiasts its kind of like saying "I detonated some BP" to a pyro, its annoying.
Swede Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Good people simply want to live in peace, and be left alone. But there will always be bad people. ALWAYS. You could take every single dime the U.S. has ever spent on war and defense, and pour this avalanche of cash onto poor people via social programs, education, etc, and people will still steal, burglarize, rape, use drugs, and murder. It is human nature. This means that I want to be able to defend myself from such people. And that requires firearms. My older daughter just turned 21. Years ago, I said "Do you want to live your life in fear as a young woman living alone, or do you want to be able to remain safe?" She decided then and there to learn how to shoot, and to handle a weapon competently and safely. She can now live in her own home and fear no man, due to her skills.
psyco_1322 Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Just what could the NRA sue them for? Trying to pass a bill?
AprenticeChemist Posted June 29, 2008 Author Posted June 29, 2008 Id assume it would be for trying to take away constitutional rights. Thats the only thing I could think of as to why they could sue. Im damn glad maybe this ruling will help prevent the next president from trying to pass another AWB(Assualt Weapon Ban), at least not so quickly.
RUUUUUN Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 The NRA is sueing them for having total bans on handguns when the US supreme court ruled that total bans on handguns is unconstitutional. By sueing, The NRA is going to knock those laws down and allow peoples in those areas to legally own handguns.
oskarchem Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Swede> Knowing how to shoot a target is fine, but I pulling a trigger on someone is a whole different story, would you daughter be able to shoot a person?
Swede Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Swede> Knowing how to shoot a target is fine, but I pulling a trigger on someone is a whole different story, would you daughter be able to shoot a person? No one knows until the moment comes. Actually shooting someone is the very last step. Just brandishing a weapon rarely makes the news, but it has stopped a lot of crime. She is in Army ROTC and is surrounded by that sort of training and environment, so I think yes, if the intruder/attacker is truly threatening, she will do it.
oskarchem Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Ah, I didn't kknow that she was involved in the army. It is true that pulling a gun at someone usually stops him, unless he's got a gun too..
Brakkie Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 @Oskarchem: You should look at it the other way. If you were some dumb shit that tried to burglarize a house. If the person comes in the room with a 12 gauge shotgun pointed to your face. Would you fight or run? If it was me I'd try the neighbours Personally I do not own a handgun (YET) but I'm going to the shooting club right after holiday. I do carry a knife with me 24/7. It has been a routine for me for 3 years now and I only left the house twice without one. I train with each knife that I own to make a quick draw. With my coldsteel Ti-Lite I'm able to go under 0,2 seconds. Me and a friend sometimes train in the woods with a wooden training knife that we made. although in Holland it's illigal to defend yourself. Well you are but the conditions you have to be in are crazy and even then you're not allowed to completely disable the threat. Personally I care about my life a lot more than some crazy shitface.
TheSidewinder Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 In my mind, "Gun Control" means being able to hit what you're aiming at. And in my case, Dad taught me VERY well. Would I hesitate for an instant, shooting some scumbag who obviously has no moral standards? No. And I would sleep very well afterwards. I was taught to protect Women, Children, and the vulnerable. My compassion for my fellow humans does not extend to criminals who have chosen their course of action.
nuclearrabbit Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 At home I've got a 1944 Izhevsk Mosin Nagant M44 waiting for me. Nothing rare or special about it but still historically significant. Soon I'll be sending for a Mossberg 590A1 and either a S&W 1006 or a Rock Island Armory 1911. All great firearms.
Swede Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 although in Holland it's illigal to defend yourself. Well you are but the conditions you have to be in are crazy and even then you're not allowed to completely disable the threat. Personally I care about my life a lot more than some crazy shitface. Artistic, you have an interesting perspective from outside the U.S. When I travel Europe, people ask we where I am from (Chicago, initially) and they say "Ahh, gangsters! (And make machine gun noises with their lips.)" They are shocked when I tell them I have never heard a gun fired in anger, ever. Many Europeans think it's the wild west here, but it's not. Do the majority of people in Holland approve of the law, the one that says essentially you must let them butcher you? I don't understand the passivity of it. If a man were to attempt rape, is the woman not allowed to defend herself? I'll suspect the answer is "she may, just not with lethal force." The problem there is a 40kg woman NEEDS lethal force if she is to keep a 100kg muscular man from raping her. So I guess she gets raped, or thrown in jail for murder. Not a good choice.
AprenticeChemist Posted June 29, 2008 Author Posted June 29, 2008 Swede it all depends on the neighborhood you live in not which city. Because where I live for the most part its nothing to bad, but certain parts are pretty bad. Until I had moved to the south/west side of town I had never heard gunshots in the middle of the night but living there every other nights it was gunshots. And ive known people from Chicago and they were from the bad side of town and they were saying that shit was fucking BAD. So its not just which city you live in its which side of town. So im taking it you probably don't live in a horrible crack neighborhood part of chicago. My view on defending myself is this, if you are dumb enough to break into my house with a weapon in hand then you get what you got coming which is me unloading my magazine into your chest. Obviously being army infantry, ive got training and already been somewhat prepared(I realize NOTHING can totally prepare you for it except having to do it) for having to shoot someone. Now if someone is unarmed I won't shoot until they decide to not listen to me and do something stupid. But I garuntee if you have a weapon in hand you can expect at least 15-20rds of 7.62x39 to the chest because im not chancing that you somehow survive one or two shots and end up sueing my ass, or getting up and attacking because your hopped up on PCP. Thats another thing you have to consider nowadays people do get in trouble for defending themselves so expect trouble if you have to kill someone. But I feel id rather end up in jail ALIVE, then hesitated and be dead because I didn't want to get in trouble for defending myself.
oskarchem Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 I think killing a person with one round, will get you into less trouble than unloading a full mag into the guy. Just look at it wrom the juges/media/public point of view, we all know that the media make stuff look 100 times worse than they actually are, if you just kill him in one shot (it will look better showing that you do know how to shoot (not evryone is capable of killing a person in one bullet firing somwhere else than his head)) the media won't notice it and the juges will see the self defense. But putting 17 rds into him : The media will be sure to notice you, and the juge will NOT see this as self defense. But then evryone has his "styles" if I was to kill a person I prefer to do it with the least attention I can get.
AprenticeChemist Posted June 30, 2008 Author Posted June 30, 2008 Granted that is true but thats why I didn't just say Oh yea im going to unload all 30 rounds into him. Im not an expert shot, and im going to highly doubt one shot is going to kill an intruder at least not right away. So the way I look at it I will continue firing until I know the son of a bitch is not getting back up, and it all depends to on what the guy has. If he breaks in with a knife then he probably will maybe be allowed to leave with his life but if its a gun I will unload until he stops moving completly. Like i've said though, in my opinion id much rather be in jail then dead because I was worried about whether id go to jail for killing some crackhead for breaking in armed. But then again thats why I plan on getting a shot gun because it shouldn't take more then one or two rounds of nice buckshot to the chest to stop an intruder cold in his tracks.
colniko Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Oskarchem, sorry, but you are in a fantasy world if you think that a single shot is going to stop most people. Not to mention the fact that in a lethal force situation your heart rate is so high most cognitive thought is gone. You simply have time to react to your threat. As far as judges and a jury of your peers go, it's always a game of hit or miss on how they see things. Key phrase to remember here, "I was shooting to STOP THE THREAT". That could be 1 shot, that could be 3 magazines worth. You wont know what will do the trick until you are in THAT particular situation. Besides, anything worth shooting once, is worth shooting several times. Dead is dead. Be it from one shot or 101. And I agree with Sidwinder, Gun control is hitting your intended target. AMEN! I am off my soap box. Oh yeah, and Aprentice, go through Jump School and Ranger School. And if you are feeling exceptionally high speed, SERE. RLTW! Hooah!
AprenticeChemist Posted June 30, 2008 Author Posted June 30, 2008 Im going to try to go to AirAssualt and possibly Rangers, Jump school out of the question. My back is way to fucked up for that, that shit is extremly bad on your back and I don't want to end my military career to early because of a fucked up back. Ive got to get my PT score up a bit though to try to go to the schools.
FrKoNaLeaSh1010 Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 I wanted to agree with the consensus and say that one bullet not in the head will very rarely actually kill unless it hits the heart or a very vital organ or its a .50cal rifle. One bullet will however usually put the person down and disarm them or incapacitate them. But why would you want to take that chance? If someone comes into my house and points a gun at me they are getting a couple rounds in the chest. Of course it isn't necessary to empty a 30rd magazine into them but 3-5 shots should do it. also as someone else said if you reach the point where you have to shoot someone your adrenaline is going so much that your thought process is dimmed so you really wouldn't think about how many rounds...you are just gonna pull the trigger till the person hits the ground and stops moving.
Brakkie Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Artistic, you have an interesting perspective from outside the U.S. When I travel Europe, people ask we where I am from (Chicago, initially) and they say "Ahh, gangsters! (And make machine gun noises with their lips.)" They are shocked when I tell them I have never heard a gun fired in anger, ever. Many Europeans think it's the wild west here, but it's not. Do the majority of people in Holland approve of the law, the one that says essentially you must let them butcher you? I don't understand the passivity of it. If a man were to attempt rape, is the woman not allowed to defend herself? I'll suspect the answer is "she may, just not with lethal force." The problem there is a 40kg woman NEEDS lethal force if she is to keep a 100kg muscular man from raping her. So I guess she gets raped, or thrown in jail for murder. Not a good choice. Well Swede in a crazy way yes most people do obey this law. I'm really a rare breed here to absolutely defend myself and the others around me if I needed to. Many people won'even try to attack the other person because they don't know how. It's legal to carry a foldable blade up to 28cm unfolded (11") but most people don't know. When I whip out my Ti Lite (19cm) or my CS RECON 1 (25cm) most people look scared and think I'm some criminal with an illigal knife. It's not but the crazy thing is cops are the exact same. I've had a cop look at my knife once and tried to make me believe it was illigal and tried to take it away from me. So I told him that he pretty much had 2 choices. #1: You give me back my knife and leave me alone. #2: Take my knife away and bring me to the police station as well and I'll give a full report on him that he's a lousy cop that doesn't know the law. It's not allowed to carry a knife in the town centre but outside that no one can do a jack sh*t. I've had a friend of mine nearly got strangeled and he didn't resist simply because of the fact that if you kill or disable the attacker you're gonna be the one to go to jail. But to be honest I wouldn't care. Don't take my wrong I really wouldn't want to go to jail but if I'm put in a situation where it's either me or him, it's gonna be him for sure. I've only used my knife once and it didn't even see any action. A guy wanted to rape me (I was in the woods) so I pulled my knife and told him to get the hell outta here before he'd get hurt. IF the guy that tried to rape me pressed charges against me I'd be arrested for attempted assault with a deadly weapon. He'd go free! So to answer your question, yes most people won't do a jack shit and even when they do, they'd probably wouldn't use enough force to take the person out because they fear being arrested themselves. @Oskarchem: The point of self defense is not to kill the person but to disable them. So a round to the knee, chest or shoulder will be enough to stop most attackers from trying to do more harm. Especially for me as a knife-guy it's important to hit the parts of the body that would simply disable the attacker. So arms, legs and groin. Chest and head can be deadly easily and in a country where self defense is frowned upon that's not something you want. It doesn't matter if it's 1 round or a whole magazine. If the coroner finds the first 26 shots didn't kill him but the 27th did it would still be accounted as self defense. As long as the threat is still there you're allowed to defend yourself.
Swede Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Artistic, we have a problem with litigation in the U.S. There have been cases where a crackhead, armed burglar was wounded by the victim, and being alive, decides to sue the victim of his crime for disabling him with a shot to the kneecap. We have two court systems, entirely separate... civil, and criminal. You may not be prosecuted in a criminal court if they find self defense, but anybody can sue anyone in civil court for anything. It's insane. If the guy is alive, he will take the witness stand, and simply lie. "I was NOT threatening him, I did NOT point a gun at him, he was crazy and acting aggressive." If he is dead, you tell your side, and there simply is no other side. And if he is in my home, armed, he is dead, he just doesn't know it yet. I will always attempt to hold him at gunpoint if he is unarmed, but if he brandishes a weapon, he will not survive. You are less likely to be sued in civil court if the guy is 6 feet under and pushing up daisies, unless his heirs attempt it. So there is a tendency in a clear case of self-defense, to shoot to kill. I'm not saying it's the correct way, it's just the way it is here. Professional courses teach "shoot to kill" and never shoot to wound. I am pleased to hear that you are carrying an effective weapon and know how to use it, to keep yourself, and other innocents, safe from crime.
frogy Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 I myself don't own any real firearms, though I definitely can shoot them... With my friend's M9 I have an extremely tight grouping, though I hate the gun. I would also not hesitate in killing some armed crackhead breaking into my house.... If the person is unarmed, and doesn't brandish a weapon, I would basically ask them to leave at gunpoint... Then call the police (not for my protection, they just like to know that kind of stuff)...
Brakkie Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Swede, in the Netherlands we don't really have a civil court. We do but it's not for these purposes. Civil court here is mainly for business, getting your rights, etc. I'm sorry to say but the US law system seems pretty messed up if you ask me. The sums of money that some people get out of the civil court is just crazy! Just an example I can remember from the top of my head was a guy that brought a few pair of jeans to the drycleaner and they lost them. He got a couple millions out of it. I mean come on!? Personally I'd defend to wound and not to kill. That's how me and my friend trained and that's where I stand. I don't see the reason of killing them if I can't see any other option. Ofcourse the fact that there's a chance that you'll get sued and the jailtime for assault with a deadly weapon is far less than manslaughter or murder. You'd get away with probably a maximum of 5 years at the most. Providing you didn't cut his throat when the job was done, cut off his arms and legs and stuffed him in a 48" shell and send the guy into space with a homemade 8" whistle rocket
colniko Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Shoot to wound? Here is a little suggestion: run a mile as fast as you can. Bang out some push-ups and pull-ups. Then have a friend come at you fast and aggressive with a weapon. I wanna hear you tell me that you can effectively draw and pinpoint your "wounding" locations before he manages to get you. And that is if you have a gun. A knife? Good luck partner. I have seen professional "knife fighters" attempt to disarm some jackass who had a razor, and it didn't go so well for them. End result, someone had to shoot the guy and "knife fighter"? Well he got a trip to the ER and some badass looking slashes/scars, which I am sure makes for great war stories to the ladies. Oh, and that little PT workout above, still doesn't come close to where your heart rate and stress levels are going to be in a REAL stress shoot situation. But hey bro, I am not trying to sell you on any of my idea's, just saying you may want to give your's a realistic go. Swede, I can't speak for everywhere, but the new mantra for most defense schools these days is "Shoot to Stop the Threat" as a opposed to kill. Read between the lines we know that means kill, but I guess it's all about CYA.
Brakkie Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Colniko, ofcourse when you're in the situation it might be diffirent. If the person is truly trying to kill me ofcourse I'll try to kill too and won't try to simply disable him. For a person that doesn't show a lethal threat I would try to simply disable them. Killing them has no advantage point in a situation where your own life isn't in danger.
TheSidewinder Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 There's an old saying here, one with which I fully agree: "I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6." I will not shoot to wound. If you do so, you risk being sued by the scumbag for violating their civil rights, a ridiculous idea fostered by slimy lawyers. A burglar who turns and flees will be allowed to run from my home. However, if I am forced to use a gun against that person to defend myself, they will be stone cold dead when I stop shooting. And that's what the saying means, really. I'll take my chances with a jury of 12, rather than risk being carried to my grave by 6 pallbearers.....
Recommended Posts