Age Old Question

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

In my state of KY there is no law that someone has to wear a helmet when riding a Motorcycle yet I still wear one when I ride. It makes me too nervous to ride without one, especially after I have laid my old bike down WITHOUT one on. So am I just extremely paranoid? Or just taking action to keep myself safe against something that may happen?

Yes the locks are on your doors to keep people out you don't want in weather they be a random person or thugs looking for trouble.

Your motorcycle concern is not an irrational fear. Anybody who has ridden one knows that risk is a real risk. Worrying that the boogey man is going to break into your home to "get" you and yours is an irrational fear.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Here is some more info on re education camps and the ACTUAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

http://www.infowars.com/army-admits-...ublic-release/

http://rt.com/usa/news/army-manual-camps-citizens-593/

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd534.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-...citizens/30703

None of those offer any proof. They're just accusations and trying to pass off the obvious as evidence.

Not all military manuals are ment for public release? Well... yeah. That's kind of a given.
Private investigators as prime sources who likewise offer no real proof? Come on.

[Bengalzona]

Here's my thing guys: If you "like" guns, just say you like guns. Quit trying to convince me that I "need" a gun. I can respect someone coming out and saying how they really feel, particularly about guns. If you like guns, I have no problem with that. Guns are sort of cool. I'm all for the Second Amendment. Just save me the paranoid crap about me and everybody else needing a gun. I ain't buying it. And I'm also not buying this "first step" crap about restrictions on privately owned automatic weapons and high capacity magazines being the first step towards banning all firearms. I know of no sane person who believes it is even possible to ban firearms in this country. That ain't gonna happen.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Here's my thing guys: If you "like" guns, just say you like guns. Quit trying to convince me that I "need" a gun. I can respect someone coming out and saying how they really feel, particularly about guns. If you like guns, I have no problem with that. Guns are sort of cool. I'm all for the Second Amendment. Just save me the paranoid crap about me and everybody else needing a gun. I ain't buying it. And I'm also not buying this "first step" crap about restrictions on privately owned automatic weapons and high capacity magazines being the first step towards banning all firearms. I know of no sane person who believes it is even possible to ban firearms in this country. That ain't gonna happen.

Zone— you need a gun.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

And that's the justification you use for your need for a gun? That sounds like an argument a single female might use. Then again, you should also consider your last sentence: "There is no telling what would have occurred if she didn't have that weapon". There is no telling. But, we are to assume from the story that she would have been attacked, raped and murdered as if that is just the natural conclusion. Sounds like a story kids would tell around the campfire. And we are also supposed to assume that this could happen to us, even though we are not single females. Hence, we need to arm ourselves with automatic weapons with high capacity magazines.

Dude. If you like guns, just say you like guns. Don't peddle fear and paranoia.

Congratulations. You figured out I didn't give my personal view on guns themselves. My thoughts on that subject are completely irrelevant. That woman at one time had your same view on likelihood of being in that situation. She found out the possibility did exist in the same manner people who want to ban guns or ammo would need to experience.

Point is, and my only shared opinion on the matter, until you can assure someone 100% that they will never need a weapon, I don't think you should judge them in a negative way nor should you take the decision away from them.

Again, (since you already missed it once), this does not indicate if I do or don't like guns. This is not peddling fear or paranoia. It is about individual choice. You made yours and that is fine, but why make the choice for someone else.

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Here's my thing guys: If you "like" guns, just say you like guns. Quit trying to convince me that I "need" a gun. I can respect someone coming out and saying how they really feel, particularly about guns. If you like guns, I have no problem with that. Guns are sort of cool. I'm all for the Second Amendment. Just save me the paranoid crap about me and everybody else needing a gun. I ain't buying it. And I'm also not buying this "first step" crap about restrictions on privately owned automatic weapons and high capacity magazines being the first step towards banning all firearms. I know of no sane person who believes it is even possible to ban firearms in this country. That ain't gonna happen.

Where have I said YOU should own a gun? I thought you knew me better than you obviously do. Or are you just just so entrenched in your own belief that you suspend the knowledge that some of us don't push our views on others? Big difference between pushing views and pointing out you think other people MIGHT have a legitimate point.

On the flip side, I will acknowledge some people do push an extreme point of view, I only respond to this second quote because you accused me of being one of them.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

No, I understand that. But by law you are allowed to use reasonable force in England. The question of what is reasonable is determined by trial. That does not refute what I was saying. The laws are what they are.

I guess I didn't convey my meaning. Your statements at this point don't seem to acknowledge overall sociological differences in view for the different cultures and how laws reflect these views. I was drunk and tired when reading so I may be wrong, but instead of reading again...

If you go before a jury because a DA made a decision to press charges (which is not common in these cases in states with castle doctrine) then something exists that indicates you weren't truly protecting yourself and the burden of proof is on that DA. Automatically going to trial before jury means, you killed a man so you must explain why, burden of proof is actually on you even if wording of law may indicate otherwise.

Why? Their attitude leans toward "You shouldn't kill a person in that situation". Castle doctrine residents tend to view it as, that person shouldn't have been in your house.

So yes, the laws on the matter are very different at their core and it does lean towards being against defense in England at a very acute angle.

And that touchdown was good catch by Stokely. Yeah, drinking again. 2 nights in a row, not normal for me.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

Congratulations. You figured out I didn't give my personal view on guns themselves. My thoughts on that subject are completely irrelevant. That woman at one time had your same view on likelihood of being in that situation. She found out the possibility did exist in the same manner people who want to ban guns or ammo would need to experience.

Point is, and my only shared opinion on the matter, until you can assure someone 100% that they will never need a weapon, I don't think you should judge them in a negative way nor should you take the decision away from them.

Again, (since you already missed it once), this does not indicate if I do or don't like guns. This is not peddling fear or paranoia. It is about individual choice. You made yours and that is fine, but why make the choice for someone else.

First, if you will recall I did ask "And that's the justification you use for your need for a gun?", a question which you didn't answer.

Second, your response was to a comment I had made in response to a different poster. Being that you entered an already established conversation, assumptions about your leanings would be reasonable.

Third, there is still no evidence that this woman even needed the gun in that situation. That is your assumption. Frankly, I'm not convinced.

Where have I said YOU should own a gun? I thought you knew me better than you obviously do. Or are you just just so entrenched in your own belief that you suspend the knowledge that some of us don't push our views on others? Big difference between pushing views and pointing out you think other people MIGHT have a legitimate point.

On the flip side, I will acknowledge some people do push an extreme point of view, I only respond to this second quote because you accused me of being one of them.

My comment was a general comment to the thread. There were no quotes. Why would you take that as a personal comment directed to you? It's not an accusation that you are making that claim personally, only to those who are making that claim. Our conversation on the matter is above.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Here's my thing guys: If you "like" guns, just say you like guns. Quit trying to convince me that I "need" a gun. I can respect someone coming out and saying how they really feel, particularly about guns. If you like guns, I have no problem with that. Guns are sort of cool. I'm all for the Second Amendment. Just save me the paranoid crap about me and everybody else needing a gun. I ain't buying it. And I'm also not buying this "first step" crap about restrictions on privately owned automatic weapons and high capacity magazines being the first step towards banning all firearms. I know of no sane person who believes it is even possible to ban firearms in this country. That ain't gonna happen.

I don't need a gun, I have them for hunting only. As for protection? Good luck trying to get past my dogs.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

GlamDring is one i would want That and LongClaw (Game of Thrones) and a Klingon Batlif

the collector sword i have is 440 spanish steal... Which im told is good.

Check this out, I have always liked the broadsword.

http://www.coldsteel.com/Product/88S...ROADSWORD.aspx

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

Check this out, I have always liked the broadsword.

http://www.coldsteel.com/Product/88S...ROADSWORD.aspx

I can't stand the basket on that thing.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I can't stand the basket on that thing.

Agreed, but there were other types of broadswords that were used. The Viking Broadsword is the one I really like.


http://www.darkknightarmoury.com/p-9...roadsword.aspx

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

I don't need a gun, I have them for hunting only. As for protection? Good luck trying to get past my dogs.

I respect that.

And a dog can be far better than a gun for security in a lot of different ways IMO.

[SteelCitySouth]

"If you negotiate the minefield in the drive
And beat the dogs and cheat the cold electronic eyes
And if you make it past the shotgun in the hall,
Dial the combination, open the priesthole
And if I'm in I'll tell you what's behind the wall."

PF

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

Agreed, but there were other types of broadswords that were used. The Viking Broadsword is the one I really like.


http://www.darkknightarmoury.com/p-9...roadsword.aspx

I know, one of mine is very similar to that. Only mine was made by a guy I know who does period weaponry. One of my Pagan connections.

[BengalRugby]

I respect that.

And a dog can be far better than a gun for security in a lot of different ways IMO.

It depends.


I have a fairly "mean" looking dog, but he is anything but home security. Similarly, I know animals and have zero fear dog in spite of how they posture. I don't want to go into how easy it is to neutralize a dog, but I think you get the idea.


I would definitely be more inclined to break into neighbors home with a dog, as opposed to a neighbor's home at which he target shot cans in the backyard a couple times a week. In fact, the neighbors often shoot all sorts of things, as do I the occasional varmint that encroaches on my chickens. It is an opportunity to advertise that firearms are on the premises.


Point is, if I had to break into a home, and knew one had a semi-automatic pistol, and the other 4 shutzhund trained dobermans. I'd take my chances with the dobies 10 out of 10 times.


Maybe it's just me, but dogs aren't the great defenders most think. Now someone with guns and dogs, best to completely avoid that house...

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

I respect that.

And a dog can be far better than a gun for security in a lot of different ways IMO.

It depends.


I have a fairly "mean" looking dog, but he is anything but home security. Similarly, I know animals and have zero fear dog in spite of how they posture. I don't want to go into how easy it is to neutralize a dog, but I think you get the idea.


I would definitely be more inclined to break into neighbors home with a dog, as opposed to a neighbor's home at which he target shot cans in the backyard a couple times a week. In fact, the neighbors often shoot all sorts of things, as do I the occasional varmint that encroaches on my chickens. It is an opportunity to advertise that firearms are on the premises.


Point is, if I had to break into a home, and knew one had a semi-automatic pistol, and the other 4 shutzhund trained dobermans. I'd take my chances with the dobies 10 out of 10 times.


Maybe it's just me, but dogs aren't the great defenders most think. Now someone with guns and dogs, best to completely avoid that house...

Not all dogs are like that, the only way you get past them is if you use lethal force, in which case I have the right too give you the opportunity to answer another age old question; Is there an after life?

[BengalRugby]

Your motorcycle concern is not an irrational fear. Anybody who has ridden one knows that risk is a real risk. Worrying that the boogey man is going to break into your home to "get" you and yours is an irrational fear.


What are the numbers supporting such a statement?

I am an ex-motorcycle rider and wore a helmet even when the law did not necessitate it. So to follow your analogy, what are the number of helmet-less compared to helmeted rider accidents, versus citizens invaded by the guns the propose laws are "protecting" us from to those we are nor lawfully "protected?"


I have asked throughout, if all the proposed "banned" weapons were banned, how many lives would have been saved in 2012?

Heck, how many lives would have been saved by reasonable exercise and proper nutrition? Or why not simply regulate ammunition, as I've said dozens of times before? Or outlaw motorcycles in general as they cannot comply with the safety standard instituted by seatbelt laws?


We need less busy bodies an more common sense. Maybe that is our failing as a nation of parents?

[BengalRugby]

Not all dogs are like that, the only way you get past them is if you use lethal force, in which case I have the right too give you the opportunity to answer another age old question; Is there an after life?


False.


All dogs, especially trained ones, take commands. If you can find the command and tone, they will obey. Further, they, as animals, are easily baited, which can be nasty business if one were cruel. I have had dogs all my life and know how to deal with them, including tricking them into taking medicines they don't appreciate, but more just a general theme.


Obviously, there is no afterlife. So to answer in the bonus round, not all dogs go to heaven.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Not all dogs are like that, the only way you get past them is if you use lethal force, in which case I have the right too give you the opportunity to answer another age old question; Is there an after life?


False.


All dogs, especially trained ones, take commands. If you can find the command and tone, they will obey. Further, they, as animals, are easily baited, which can be nasty business if one were cruel. I have had dogs all my life and know how to deal with them, including tricking them into taking medicines they don't appreciate, but more just a general theme.




Obviously, there is no afterlife. So to answer in the bonus round, not all dogs go to heaven.

You do not know my dogs. Those tricks will work for some dogs, mine aren't like that. You come in my house and they do not know you or recognize your scent and I have not invited you in, you are in a world of hurt if I am sleeping or taking a shower or what ever. That is the way they were trained. So use the lethal force too get past them, then you can deal with an 12 gauge 870 Remington with 4 shot.

[BengalRugby]

You do not know my dogs. Those tricks will work for some dogs, mine aren't like that. You come in my house and they do not know you or recognize your scent and I have not invited you in, you are in a world of hurt if I am sleeping or taking a shower or what ever. That is the way they were trained. So use the lethal force too get past them, then you can deal with an 12 gauge 870 Remington with 4 shot.


Certainly, your dogs may be different that all of the other dogs I have seen in my experience, but the odds are that they are not. Scent is not nearly as important as dominance, authority, and absence of fear.

There is no"world of hurt" in a dog encounter once you give them an arm. After that, well, you know...

I appreciate the faith you have in your animals, but I accept the reality of the situation. What training do your dogs have by the way? I mean, to know scents and invited guest, but all else are lunchmeat, can't be a safe animal to take into public?

As for your gun, who cares? I'm not a big gun guy and already addressed that issue...

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

I guess I didn't convey my meaning. Your statements at this point don't seem to acknowledge overall sociological differences in view for the different cultures and how laws reflect these views. I was drunk and tired when reading so I may be wrong, but instead of reading again...

If you go before a jury because a DA made a decision to press charges (which is not common in these cases in states with castle doctrine) then something exists that indicates you weren't truly protecting yourself and the burden of proof is on that DA. Automatically going to trial before jury means, you killed a man so you must explain why, burden of proof is actually on you even if wording of law may indicate otherwise.

Why? Their attitude leans toward "You shouldn't kill a person in that situation". Castle doctrine residents tend to view it as, that person shouldn't have been in your house.

So yes, the laws on the matter are very different at their core and it does lean towards being against defense in England at a very acute angle.

And that touchdown was good catch by Stokely. Yeah, drinking again. 2 nights in a row, not normal for me.

Even in the U.S. when a police officer uses lethal force, he is suspended until an investigation is done to determine if lethal force was necessary.

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

You do not know my dogs. Those tricks will work for some dogs, mine aren't like that. You come in my house and they do not know you or recognize your scent and I have not invited you in, you are in a world of hurt if I am sleeping or taking a shower or what ever. That is the way they were trained. So use the lethal force too get past them, then you can deal with an 12 gauge 870 Remington with 4 shot.


Certainly, your dogs may be different that all of the other dogs I have seen in my experience, but the odds are that they are not. Scent is not nearly as important as dominance, authority, and absence of fear.

There is no"world of hurt" in a dog encounter once you give them an arm. After that, well, you know...

I appreciate the faith you have in your animals, but I accept the reality of the situation. What training do your dogs have by the way? I mean, to know scents and invited guest, but all else are lunchmeat, can't be a safe animal to take into public?

As for your gun, who cares? I'm not a big gun guy and already addressed that issue...

I suppose you have never seen a trained police dog? Mine are not police dogs, however they are the same in that they respond to my voice and my voice only. Nobody needs to worry about my shotgun or other weapons, I will never go postal ever, however breaking into my home and "neutralizing" my dogs is not going postal, it is just protecting myself. My dogs are perfectly fine in public, shoot the kids even play with them. Breaking into a home is totally different however.

Any this thread is not about me or my dogs, it is about the social issue that is raised in regards to weapons. Some people today put the blame on everything except the real problem. I grew up with cartoons like bugs bunny, Elmer Fudd, and Wiley Coyote, they took them off the air because they were to violent. Same goes with movies today and even music. Here is an original idea, instead of putting the blame on all those things, how about parents try raising their kids to be responsible, and if there is a problem with them, get them help.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

I respect that.

And a dog can be far better than a gun for security in a lot of different ways IMO.

It depends.


I have a fairly "mean" looking dog, but he is anything but home security. Similarly, I know animals and have zero fear dog in spite of how they posture. I don't want to go into how easy it is to neutralize a dog, but I think you get the idea.


I would definitely be more inclined to break into neighbors home with a dog, as opposed to a neighbor's home at which he target shot cans in the backyard a couple times a week. In fact, the neighbors often shoot all sorts of things, as do I the occasional varmint that encroaches on my chickens. It is an opportunity to advertise that firearms are on the premises.


Point is, if I had to break into a home, and knew one had a semi-automatic pistol, and the other 4 shutzhund trained dobermans. I'd take my chances with the dobies 10 out of 10 times.


Maybe it's just me, but dogs aren't the great defenders most think. Now someone with guns and dogs, best to completely avoid that house...

Dogs typically bark. If they don't do it naturally, they can be trained to do it quite easily. That's a warning for anyone trespassing and for the homeowner. Bypassing that is not so easy, especially if the dog is in the house.

How many people do you think are out there who are still going to approach a house with the intent to break-in when dogs bark, lights turn on, alarms go off, etc.? Do you think that is a very large percentage of people intent on breaking into a home or a very small percent? Would that be an atypical person trying to break in?

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

What are the numbers supporting such a statement?

Somewhere in the interwebz waiting for someone with the proper motivation to assemble them into a cohesive and cogent argument.

That person is not me. I'm afraid I'm far too lazy for that.

I am an ex-motorcycle rider and wore a helmet even when the law did not necessitate it. So to follow your analogy, what are the number of helmet-less compared to helmeted rider accidents, versus citizens invaded by the guns the propose laws are "protecting" us from to those we are nor lawfully "protected?"

A CDC study on helmet laws effects:

http://www.saferoads.org/cdc-study-m...lth-care-costs

I have asked throughout, if all the proposed "banned" weapons were banned, how many lives would have been saved in 2012?

When you say "proposed", which weapons do you mean? Assault rifles? High capacity magazines? Automatic weapons? Semi-automatic weapons? Handguns?

There are organizations that have proposed banning some or all of those. I don't think the White House has made any proposal yet. My understanding is that Uncle Joe is still meeting with organizations and collecting data.

Heck, how many lives would have been saved by reasonable exercise and proper nutrition?

A lot of lives. But you and I both know that enforcing something like that is not feasible, just as banning all privately owned-firearms is not feasible.

Or why not simply regulate ammunition, as I've said dozens of times before?

I'm all for this. Except that you would have trouble finding a way to regulate ammo that has already been sold and owned by someone. Still no reason why future ammo couldn't be regulated to some degree.

Or outlaw motorcycles in general as they cannot comply with the safety standard instituted by seatbelt laws?

Are they supposed to comply with seatbelt standards?

We need less busy bodies an more common sense. Maybe that is our failing as a nation of parents?

Do you want to teach common sense? Common sense tends to come with experience: yours or someone else's.

[silenetwolf]

regulating ammunition=another item to be sold on the black market or brought into the country illegally. Also, you can reload your ammunition.