Is this hypocrisy? - DPChallenge Forums

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/25/2013 08:52:05 AM · #876

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spork99:
Try it. Do what the Marines do. Sprint 100yd, do pushups as fast as you can for 30 sec and then do 30 sec of jumping jacks...then immediately try loading your weapon. Good luck.

And yet again......we are *not* talking about a wartime scenario. To a certain extent, you guys have to a certain extent managed to convince me that you've at least thought some of these situations through, and that you may be able to save your own lives and your families', but by the same token, I don't want any of y'all for neighbors, either.

I can appreciate where you guys with your adamant refusal to budge on giving up your guns are coming from, but the whole "taking away rights" thing just simply does not fly.

You need to come up with some truly justifiable reasoning, because the longer you guys talk about shooting people ransacking you cars and keeping guns with chambered rounds on hand in the house, the scarier you sound.

The drill isn't about military action or wartime, it's about the loss of the fine motor skills required to load a weapon when under stress. And I guarantee you will be under intense amounts of stress if you are the victim of a hot prowl burglary or a similar situation. Of course maybe you'd prefer to surprise them in your pajamas with the hope that they'll want to sit down and discuss it with you over a cup of tea where you can use your skills of persuasion and reason to convince them to leave you alone.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/25/2013 09:36:13 AM · #877

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:
Thank you for the link to the NRA safety rules. Had never seen them before and was totally unaware that one should keep their firearms unloaded.

Wow......just freakin' wow....

I'm quite certain Flash was being sarcastic...

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/25/2013 09:43:26 AM · #878

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:
Thank you for the link to the NRA safety rules. Had never seen them before and was totally unaware that one should keep their firearms unloaded.

Wow......just freakin' wow....

I'm quite certain Flash was being sarcastic...

I'd hope so, but given some other things he wrote, I'm not entirely certain. Especially since he doesn't actually follow the NRA safety rules.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/25/2013 10:06:04 AM · #879

Originally posted by Spork99:

These are the recommendations I got from an expert in using firearms for self defense. This person also happens to be a police officer and I've gotten the same advice from other police officers and security experts.

I wonder if the folks who want guns for self-defense and protection in the home have sought advice from security experts about the many other things you can do to protect yourself in the home? My impression is that focusing on the gun can create a false sense of security such that you may overlook preventive steps that will discourage the bad guys from targeting you and/or your home in the first place.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/25/2013 10:22:24 AM · #880

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:
These are the recommendations I got from an expert in using firearms for self defense. This person also happens to be a police officer and I've gotten the same advice from other police officers and security experts.

I wonder if the folks who want guns for self-defense and protection in the home have sought advice from security experts about the many other things you can do to protect yourself in the home? My impression is that focusing on the gun can create a false sense of security such that you may overlook preventive steps that will discourage the bad guys from targeting you and/or your home in the first place.

I know I have...exterior motion lights, alarm etc.

I also know that if the alarm goes off in the middle of the night, it will take 3-5 minutes for the alarm company to call and another 15-20 for the police to arrive if I don't answer. That's potentially 25 minutes between an intruder breaking in and the police arriving on scene. That's a long time to be alone with an intruder. The police response time is a bit faster if you call 911, telling the dispatcher about the alarm and that you're armed, while you are yelling at the "intruder" to "Get the fuck out of my house!"...maybe 10 minutes or so. Still a long time and seems like an eternity.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

01/25/2013 10:30:36 AM · #881

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Ann:
Wow. Reading what happened on this thread overnight. Just wow.
...

You guys make an excellent case for why gun owners can't have nice things.

Please read everything before you go off making mountains out of molehills.

Okay. You guys spent the night going further and further into hyperbole, but I'm not allowed to do the same. Anyway....

I don't actually have an issue with safe and responsible gun ownership. I grew up with guns, I have had weapons training, I enjoy going out shooting in the desert, and I shoot better than most people I know. But I don't live in a fantasy world where I think that, in a stressful situation, I'm going shoot like the good guys on TV do. I also don't live in a fantasy world where bad guys are lurking around every corner. I live a pretty normal urban life where there's the usual amount of property crime, but the main source of violent crime in people's homes is domestic violence. Home invasions make the news because they're extremely rare, and domestic violence doesn't make the news because it's common. I live in the real world where study after study after study has consistently shown that I'm safer living in a house without guns than I am in a house with them. Having a gun in the home makes things like gun suicides, homicides by family members, and accidents way more likely. I personally choose to be safer and not have any guns around.

The issue I have with a lot of the comments here (not specifically you, spork, but in the aggregate) is the idea that somehow if the bad guy comes, you're going to be able to get your gun out of your locked cabinet during that 1.5 seconds that the bad guy is running 21 feet towards you, and, although you're so stressed that you don't have enough motor control to successfully load the gun, you can still fire it accurately enough to shoot the bad guy without shooting your wife or child or your own foot. And that suicides, family homicides, and accidents won't ever happen to you, because you're somehow better than the idiots that those things *do* happen to.

I also have issue with pointing a gun at someone who's committing a property crime. In my weapons training, I was told never to point a weapon at anyone I don't intend to kill, and to me, it isn't acceptable to kill someone who isn't directly threatening human life. Stealing my car doesn't meet that threshold.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/25/2013 10:55:08 AM · #882

Originally posted by Ann:

I don't actually have an issue with safe and responsible gun ownership. I grew up with guns, I have had weapons training, I enjoy going out shooting in the desert, and I shoot better than most people I know. But I don't live in a fantasy world where I think that, in a stressful situation, I'm going shoot like the good guys on TV do. I also don't live in a fantasy world where bad guys are lurking around every corner. I live a pretty normal urban life where there's the usual amount of property crime, but the main source of violent crime in people's homes is domestic violence. Home invasions make the news because they're extremely rare, and domestic violence doesn't make the news because it's common. I live in the real world where study after study after study has consistently shown that I'm safer living in a house without guns than I am in a house with them. Having a gun in the home makes things like gun suicides, homicides by family members, and accidents way more likely. I personally choose to be safer and not have any guns around.

The issue I have with a lot of the comments here (not specifically you, spork, but in the aggregate) is the idea that somehow if the bad guy comes, you're going to be able to get your gun out of your locked cabinet during that 1.5 seconds that the bad guy is running 21 feet towards you, and, although you're so stressed that you don't have enough motor control to successfully load the gun, you can still fire it accurately enough to shoot the bad guy without shooting your wife or child or your own foot. And that suicides, family homicides, and accidents won't ever happen to you, because you're somehow better than the idiots that those things *do* happen to.

I also have issue with pointing a gun at someone who's committing a property crime. In my weapons training, I was told never to point a weapon at anyone I don't intend to kill, and to me, it isn't acceptable to kill someone who isn't directly threatening human life. Stealing my car doesn't meet that threshold.

It's just as easy to paint your safe urban life as a fantasy and a world where violent crimes happen to innocent people as reality.

I've had my home broken into while I was asleep. I've pointed a loaded weapon at the intruder with every intent of pulling the trigger if his next move was aggressive. Fortunately he ran. I know bad people will do bad stuff happens to good people and I'm determined not to let it happen. I'll direct them to Jeb's house where no one will point guns at them and Jeb will make them tea while they do what they will.

Property crime doesn't justify killing in my mind either, but the fact is that someone committing a robbery may decide to escalate the situation rather than leave, with or without the "stuff". The way I was taught is to not point the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. As I said before, pointing the gun is a different thing than firing it. I'm willing to destroy someone who is willing to do me or my family harm.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/25/2013 11:39:39 AM · #883

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[The current debate isn't really hinging around that, though. I don't have a real quarrel with people who respond to a home invasion by racking a round up.. That's appropriate. Protecting your family is good.

I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false.

You got to forgive me, I'm not an expert in the nuances of terminology here. All I meant was, it's OK by me if people respond to an actual, honest-to-God home invasion by bringing a loaded weapon into play. It's got nothing to do with "stereotypes". I wasn't visualizing scaring the bejeezus out of your perp by chambering a round. I'm well aware revolvers and shotguns don't chamber rounds, also. I've shot both.

Actually Robert you are absolutely right. Pump action shotguns and Semi automatic pistols put a round in the chamber by " racking a round". Here you can find a discussion on the psychological effect of racking a shotgun in a discussion by police officers and it's effect on suspects in real life experience. Please note that most of the responding officers point out department regulations that call for the chamber to be empty while in the cruiser, and only to chamber a round as required by the situation that requires it, (Side arms are of course chambered, safteys on). Some say the tactical advantage of the delay is a bad thing, but since you must give verbal warning, I don't see it. they will know where you are when you speak, and the sound of chambering a round says "and I really am armed" very clearly.

"None of the generally accepted patrol rifles, carbines or shotguns are equipped with a firing pin safety. Why is that important? Once you load a round in the chamber of a patrol long gun you can't de-cock it. I have stood in my share of squadron inspections while in the Corps; and on more than one occasion I have heard a "click" when someone slammed the butt of their rifle on the deck a little too hard after they presented it to the inspecting officer / NCO. "

Message edited by author 2013-01-25 16:40:57.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/25/2013 11:54:54 AM · #884

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[The current debate isn't really hinging around that, though. I don't have a real quarrel with people who respond to a home invasion by racking a round up.. That's appropriate. Protecting your family is good.

I really wish some of these stereotypes and misnomers would be understood to be false.

You got to forgive me, I'm not an expert in the nuances of terminology here. All I meant was, it's OK by me if people respond to an actual, honest-to-God home invasion by bringing a loaded weapon into play. It's got nothing to do with "stereotypes". I wasn't visualizing scaring the bejeezus out of your perp by chambering a round. I'm well aware revolvers and shotguns don't chamber rounds, also. I've shot both.

Actually Robert you are absolutely right. Pump action shotguns and Semi automatic pistols put a round in the chamber by " racking a round". Here you can find a discussion on the psychological effect of racking a shotgun in a discussion by police officers and it's effect on suspects in real life experience. Please note that most of the responding officers point out department regulations that call for the chamber to be empty while in the cruiser, and only to chamber a round as required by the situation that requires it, (Side arms are of course chambered, safteys on). Some say the tactical advantage of the delay is a bad thing, but since you must give verbal warning, I don't see it. they will know where you are when you speak, and the sound of chambering a round says "and I really am armed" very clearly.

"None of the generally accepted patrol rifles, carbines or shotguns are equipped with a firing pin safety. Why is that important? Once you load a round in the chamber of a patrol long gun you can't de-cock it. I have stood in my share of squadron inspections while in the Corps; and on more than one occasion I have heard a "click" when someone slammed the butt of their rifle on the deck a little too hard after they presented it to the inspecting officer / NCO. "

You should realize that on a pistol like the Glock (~65% of Law Enforcement agencies use Glocks as their standard sidearm) there is no "safety" lever or switch to switch off before the weapon will fire. The only safety operation the user is required to make is to place their finger on the trigger and squeeze.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

01/25/2013 12:13:28 PM · #885

Originally posted by Spork99:

It's just that, statistically, my version of a safe reality is much closer to...reality.

I just finished reading a book called "Thinking, Fast and Slow," which is about how the human mind is crap at intuiting statistics. The guy who wrote the book won a Nobel prize for the research, so it isn't just some junk science that some guy made up. One of the biggest mistakes we make as a species is that when we think about the probability of something happening, we think of a few specific examples, then extrapolate statistics from that. An example from the book was "Are there more words beginning with the letter K, or that have K as the third letter?" The typical reaction to a question like that is to think of some words with the letter K in them, realize that you can think of more words like kitchen and kettle than you can with K as the third letter, so the correct answer must be that there are more words that start with the letter K. Of course, any scrabble player can tell you that it's much easier to think of words beginning with a particular letter than it is to think of words with a particular letter in a later position. The correct answer is actually K in the 3rd position, by a huge margin.

From your experience of a single non-violent and probably unarmed intruder that scared you, you've decided the world is a dangerous place and you must be well armed to protect yourself, when real statistical evidence says that you're actually in much more danger from your own guns than from potential intruders.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/25/2013 12:54:19 PM · #886

Look, I don't own a gun. I've never been in a position where I wished I did own a gun, so I could use it for defensive reasons. As far as I'm aware, nobody I know or have known personally has ever had a reason, outside of warfare, to wish they were armed so they could defend themselves or others. If they HAVE been in such a position, they never told me about it. And, as Ann pointed out statistical evidence shows OVERWHELMINGLY that your personal safety decreases, rather than increases, when you keep guns in the home.

Now, y'all can go on and ON about how you are exceptions to the rule, for whatever reason: training, psychology, whatever. But none of this changes the fact that HERE, in AMERICA, it's clearly the case that you're less likely to be hurt by a gun if you don't keep guns in the home. Meanwhile, evidence from OTHER, first-world countries shows that you're MUCH less likely to die as the result of a crime being committed where MUCH more stringent gun control than ours is in place.

These are FACTS, guys. You're operating under the influence of some macho-jingoistic worldview that you're unwilling to modify. I've read the "Thinking Fast and Slow" book that Ann mentions also, and I recommend it to every reader of this thread. It's an incredibly revealing, penetrating analysis, backed up with real science, of what actually goes on in our brains.

Message edited by author 2013-01-25 17:55:30.

01/25/2013 02:29:30 PM · #887

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

Absolutely no where in any of my many many hours (decades) of training or teaching have I ever heard, read, saw or taught anything other than "justified use of deadly force REQUIRES the imminent and immediate threat of death or grave (Crippling) injury.

I harbour no doubt whatsoever that indeed such is the case, but sadly the interpretation of what constitutes such justified use is left with the person who feels threatened.

Trust me when I say that I have been in some very stressful situations and can attest to the fact that we do not all react in the same manner, particularly in civilian life. The perception of some people to certain situational factors can have some very dire consequences. The end results may not be based on malicious intent, but the fact remains that there may be only one version of the account that will be heard.

Ray

"intrepretation" is done by the court and the judicial system - to me the process of investigating and prosecuting (or not) is dependent upon the law and the law is quite clear that the threat of death or grave injury be imediately present and imminent for the justified use of defensive deadly force. For anyone posting here to suggest or imply or state that gunowners have open season on anyone stealing from them (per the castle doctrine) is simply not true. The law says otherwise and if a gunowner violates the law - even in a percieved act of self defense - they must still answer to the law.

As an experienced LEO you certainly know that there is always evidence. That evidence will either support or refute the "version" of events being told. Intentionally lying to responding officers or investigators rarely ever turns out well. Due to cognitive dissonance, auditory exclusion, or other physio-psychological factors following a violent encounter, specifics may be (and often are) remembered or recalled out of sequence - but to intentionally lie about the event is nearly always detrimental.

It would seem that we are at loggerheads as to what constitutes "Interpretation"

I would argue that mine alludes to situational interpretation, where the victims render their interpretation of what is transpiring and reacts accordingly. What you are alluding to is more in line with judicial reasoning where factors such as "actus reus" and "mens rea" are reviewed, analysed and from which a decision is rendered... the two are not the same.

Once the victim has arrived at a conclusion and acts on it, there is no coming back, particularly in the case where someone is shot and killed.

The intents may not have been to kill the perpetrator, and the victim may have been mistaken, but someone is nonetheless dead and therein lies the problem I have with "Interpretation".

I have known grizzled policemen make the wrong decision when in a stressful situation and harbour no doubt whatsoever that the average citizen would fare no better and that their perception of reality could be severely impaired by fear.

In passing, I am most certainly not one of those who would imply that gunowners have open season on anyone stealing from them (per the castle doctrine), but do earnestly believe that the basic premise of the law is flawed since all individuals have differing mechanisms when dealing with fear.

Ray

01/25/2013 02:40:33 PM · #888

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by Spork99:

It's just as easy to paint your safe urban life as a fantasy and a world where violent crimes happen to innocent people as reality.

I've had my home broken into while I was asleep. I've pointed a loaded weapon at the intruder with every intent of pulling the trigger if his next move was aggressive. Fortunately he ran. I know bad people will do bad stuff happens to good people and I'm determined not to let it happen. I'll direct them to Jeb's house where no one will point guns at them and Jeb will make them tea while they do what they will.

Property crime doesn't justify killing in my mind either, but the fact is that someone committing a robbery may decide to escalate the situation rather than leave, with or without the "stuff". The way I was taught is to not point the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. As I said before, pointing the gun is a different thing than firing it. I'm willing to destroy someone who is willing to do me or my family harm.

It's just that, statistically, my version of a safe reality is much closer to...reality.

I just finished reading a book called "Thinking, Fast and Slow," which is about how the human mind is crap at intuiting statistics. The guy who wrote the book won a Nobel prize for the research, so it isn't just some junk science that some guy made up. One of the biggest mistakes we make as a species is that when we think about the probability of something happening, we think of a few specific examples, then extrapolate statistics from that. An example from the book was "Are there more words beginning with the letter K, or that have K as the third letter?" The typical reaction to a question like that is to think of some words with the letter K in them, realize that you can think of more words like kitchen and kettle than you can with K as the third letter, so the correct answer must be that there are more words that start with the letter K. Of course, any scrabble player can tell you that it's much easier to think of words beginning with a particular letter than it is to think of words with a particular letter in a later position. The correct answer is actually K in the 3rd position, by a huge margin.

From your experience of a single non-violent and probably unarmed intruder that scared you, you've decided the world is a dangerous place and you must be well armed to protect yourself, when real statistical evidence says that you're actually in much more danger from your own guns than from potential intruders.

Does it matter if he was armed or not. He was carrying a pry bar. A short time later, another home in the area was broken into and the occupants beaten severely. Maybe it was the guy who I scared off, maybe not. You're free to believe what you want, live in whatever fantasy world you like with all the rainbows and unicorns your mind can muster.

You can put your theory to the test, come visit Flint and take a walk. I doubt you'd get 3 blocks.

I was in Detroit visiting someone in the hospital, another friend was staying at a hotel a few blocks away. They suggested we walk to the hotel, the clerk overheard us and strongly suggested we call a cab instead. There was a police officer in the lobby, when we asked him, he agreed with the clerk.

Statistics say a lot of things and if you choose to trust them, you'd be all to willing to stand outside in a lightning storm under a tree, because statistically, you're very unlikely to get struck by lightning.

01/25/2013 02:46:05 PM · #889

Originally posted by Spork99:

Statistics say a lot of things and if you choose to trust them, you'd be all to willing to stand outside in a lightning storm under a tree, because statistically, you're very unlikely to get struck by lightning.

... you are right about the overall statistic regarding lightning, but you probably greatly increased your odds by standing next to a tree. :O)

Ray

01/25/2013 02:46:12 PM · #890

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I have no doubt that had I not been armed, I'd have wound up like the occupants of the next home in my neighborhood that was hit; bound and beaten. You are free to live your life how you see fit.

Hopefully none of you will ever find yourself the victim of a violent crime. Statistically you won't. For your sake, you'd better pray it's a bet you don't lose.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/25/2013 02:47:22 PM · #891

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Statistics say a lot of things and if you choose to trust them, you'd be all to willing to stand outside in a lightning storm under a tree, because statistically, you're very unlikely to get struck by lightning.

... you are right about the overall statistic regarding lightning, but you probably greatly increased your odds by standing next to a tree. :O)

Ray

But its still statistically unlikely...so of course it won't happen to you.

Message edited by author 2013-01-25 19:47:51.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

01/25/2013 02:51:04 PM · #892

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:
These are the recommendations I got from an expert in using firearms for self defense. This person also happens to be a police officer and I've gotten the same advice from other police officers and security experts.

I wonder if the folks who want guns for self-defense and protection in the home have sought advice from security experts about the many other things you can do to protect yourself in the home? My impression is that focusing on the gun can create a false sense of security such that you may overlook preventive steps that will discourage the bad guys from targeting you and/or your home in the first place.

I know I have...exterior motion lights, alarm etc.

I also know that if the alarm goes off in the middle of the night, it will take 3-5 minutes for the alarm company to call and another 15-20 for the police to arrive if I don't answer. That's potentially 25 minutes between an intruder breaking in and the police arriving on scene. That's a long time to be alone with an intruder. The police response time is a bit faster if you call 911, telling the dispatcher about the alarm and that you're armed, while you are yelling at the "intruder" to "Get the fuck out of my house!"...maybe 10 minutes or so. Still a long time and seems like an eternity.

A man heard a noise outside and when he looked, he saw two young thugs breaking into his storage shed and stealing his stuff. he picked up the phone and called the police and told them what was happening. they told him to remain calm, get as accurate descriptions as possible and they would try to be there in about 20 minutes as they had no one in the immediate area.

the man hung up, watched yet another tool being carried out of his shed and called again. he told them who he was and not to worry about the police but to send an ambulance because he had just shot one of the burglars.

Within 5 minutes there ambulances and squad cars on the scene and caught the two thieves red handed.

One of the police officers looked at the man and said, "I thought you said you shot one of them?"

The man replied "I thought you didn't have anyone in the area and couldn't respond for at least 20 minutes?"

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/25/2013 02:58:54 PM · #893

Originally posted by Spork99:

But you can not tell us definitively that it was the same person. That's the point.

Originally posted by Spork99:

You can put your theory to the test, come visit Flint and take a walk. I doubt you'd get 3 blocks.

Maybe we're smarter and more cautious than that.....I know I don't go looking for trouble. That's the fly in the ointment for your tea, rainbows, and unicorns bullshit. You seem to equate not wanting an excess of firearms around with cluelessness. That is not the case.

Originally posted by Spork99:

I was in Detroit visiting someone in the hospital, another friend was staying at a hotel a few blocks away. They suggested we walk to the hotel, the clerk overheard us and strongly suggested we call a cab instead. There was a police officer in the lobby, when we asked him, he agreed with the clerk.

Okay.....so then the smart money is on taking the cab. What's your point?

Originally posted by Spork99:

Statistics say a lot of things and if you choose to trust them, you'd be all to willing to stand outside in a lightning storm under a tree, because statistically, you're very unlikely to get struck by lightning.

There are no guarantees in life. There are just plenty of us who would rather use our intelligence, wits, common sense, and experience to avoid bad situations rather than confront them with a gun and roll the dice.

Message edited by author 2013-01-25 19:59:01.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/25/2013 03:01:14 PM · #894

Hehehehe... don't hold back Jeb... tell us how you really feel.

Ray

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/25/2013 03:13:23 PM · #895

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Hehehehe... don't hold back Jeb... tell us how you really feel.

Ray

I don't have any problem in principle with people doing their own thing, it just makes me nervous that any idiot can walk into any sporting goods store, Wal-Mart, or Sears, and buy a semi-automatic weapon just because he's pissed off at his neighbors.

It just seems to me that some kind of vetting process for firearms can't possibly be a bad thing.

kawesttex

Apple iPhone 11 Pro

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/25/2013 03:18:40 PM · #896

I have stayed out of this for several reasons but I would like some you northern folks, including Canadians, to think about living in, on, or near the Mexican border. I don't think anyone adjacent to the Canadian border has the same problem that someone from Del Rio, Tx has.

Everyone lives in a different situation and just because you live in unicorn land doesn't mean everyone does. I think someone said that it's all situational, get over it and let them protect themselves if they feel the need.

I do!

01/25/2013 03:29:52 PM · #897

Originally posted by kawesttex:

...and that would explain why guns are so prevalent in all of the States listed Here right?

Rather sad that Pogo of comic strip fame said it best: ""We have met the enemy and he is us".

Ray

01/25/2013 03:51:45 PM · #898

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spork99:
Does it matter if he was armed or not. He was carrying a pry bar. A short time later, another home in the area was broken into and the occupants beaten severely. Maybe it was the guy who I scared off, maybe not. You're free to believe what you want, live in whatever fantasy world you like with all the rainbows and unicorns your mind can muster.

But you can not tell us definitively that it was the same person. That's the point.

Nope, but you can't tell me it wasn't either.