Fin the Equalizer!!

[Jack Michaud]

Shirtless guy with rifle captures burglar
Silverthorne resident Fin Doyle confronts man stealing from his business

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20090805/NEWS/908049990

AR-15:
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/oly_k9gl-angle-left.jpg


:AR15firin :AR15firin :AR15firin

[corey_dyck]

I convinced him to stop and lay down on the ground. I'm sure the rifle was part of that.
Haha, classic! Congrats Fin on catching the guy.

[martyagt4]

I had no idea Fin had Black Rifle Disease. Good on ya Fin!

[tex1230]

picturing the opening sequence from "American History X"
(sans the nazi tatoo of course)

[ncermak]

way to go fin! do you really think the gun had something to do with it? I bet you could have have just dazzled him knowledge of stress factors, moments of inertia and g forces until his head exploded...

[Arclite]

Ahhh the AR-15 Armalite Assault Rifle.
Popularized by the IRS (Irish Resistance...something?)

Very similar to the M4/M16

Fires a 5.56 round at around 3000 fps I believe.

30 round magazine...

If only automatics were legal in California.

[Jack Michaud]

Popularized by the IRS (Irish Resistance...something?)

IRA. Irish Republican Army

[queequeg]

Further proving the point: Hardbooters are badass!!!!

[ncermak]

Ahhh the AR-15 Armalite Assault Rifle.
Popularized by the IRS (Irish Resistance...something?)


that'll make you think twice about cheating on your income taxes...

[Sinecure]

FKNA! That's awesome. Way to go Fin!

[powdahbonz]

I was running out of topsheet ideas....Fin holding burgler at bay with AR-15. Could be interesting..

[pokkis]

“ I convinced him to stop and lay down on the ground. I'm sure the rifle was part of that.”
Hilarious :ices_ange

[Arclite]

IRA. Irish Republican Army

What he said. :biggthump

[Jon Dahl]

Now, the only question left is; When are you going to start producing AR15 parts??

[Arclite]

Now, the only question left is; When are you going to start producing AR15 parts??

I'm sure it wont be too long now. :ices_ange

[Fastskiguy]

What a great story, way to go Fin!

[bobdea]

a bayonet with a bottle opener would be nice

[davekempmeister]

Nice work - when you watch an episode of COPS, someone is always shirtless. Usually the Perp, but this is a nice twist.

[NateW]

Right on, Fin!

I don't think the law allows for that kind of thing in my state. :(

[Jon Dahl]

Right on, Fin!

I don't think the law allows for that kind of thing in my state. :(

Bet me it doesn't! Chasin' 'em down the street is pushing it, but if I catch them in my yard I'll hold them for the sheriff's dept. Works better if you can place yourself between them and the street...if you understand what I mean.

[west carven]

howdy
ah, no it wasnt me!... should have shot first then ask question later.

[Istvan]

"Doyle's dog — Zsazsa, a Rottweiler — alerted him around 1 a.m."

Fin, how come you named a rottweiler after a Hungarian actress?? :confused:

[Arclite]

Fin, how come you named a rottweiler after a Hungarian actress?? :confused:

He wishes she was his?

[skategoat]

"Shirtless guy with rifle captures burglar"

Now that's a headline you just don't see often enough.

[dingbat]

a bayonet with a bottle opener would be nice

Yeah, but do you have a pre-ban to fix it to?:AR15firin

Way to go Fin!

[D.T.]

Fin, how come you named a rottweiler after a Hungarian actress?? :confused:
The name suits her well.

[Steve Prokopiw]

but apprehending a perp is against company safety protocol and you are now relieved of your duties:)

Way to kick some burglar butt Fin.Guess I won't try to sneak a pair of td3s out the door when I visit hehe.

[Jack Michaud]

I don't think the law allows for that kind of thing in my state. :(

The US Constitution allows for it. For now. :rolleyes:

[RideGuy]

So let me get this strait...in the US it is perfectly legal to chase someone down the street wielding an assault riffle?

Great story, I'm glad the thief was caught.

[dingbat]

So let me get this strait...in the US it is perfectly legal to chase someone down the street wielding an assault riffle?

Great story, I'm glad the thief was caught.

Depends on what state you live in.

2A has not been incorperated.....yet.;)

If this had happened in MA, Fin would most likely be the one getting arrested.

.....and, if it's semi-auto, and not select fire, it is not an assault riffle, regardless of what some politicos may call it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[SunSurfer]

Yes, Fin was protecting his property.
But how much is a human life worth?

Seriously, how many people here would really have been willing to pull the trigger, and in all likelihood kill the thief?

Any responses might be best in a separate "Off Topic" thread.

SunSurfer

[tex1230]

Yes, Fin was protecting his property.
But how much is a human life worth?

Seriously, how many people here would really have been willing to pull the trigger, and in all likelihood kill the thief?

Any responses might be best in a separate "Off Topic" thread.

SunSurfer

I'm a good enough shot to wing 'em...
or fire a warning shot.

I'd shoot to kill if my family was being attacked.

[Jack Michaud]

Yes, Fin was protecting his property.
But how much is a human life worth?

Seriously, how many people here would really have been willing to pull the trigger, and in all likelihood kill the thief?

Don't be silly, you can't kill for stealing.

[tex1230]

Don't be silly, you can't kill for stealing.

unless they're stealing a horse...then it's ok :eplus2:

[Helmut Karvlow]

Don't be silly, you can't kill for stealing.

You can if ya live in Texas.............gota luv those redneck states.
Whats mine is mine NOT yours!!!! I bust my a$$ for all I have.
If the lazer sight don't make you leave, then the first one is rubber, if your still there after that it's on you what the next round is.
Good job Fin :biggthump give that dog a big-ol-bone :p

[Steph]

Wow, Fin you're such a BAMF! I'm a little turned on by that:1luvu::1luvu::1luvu:

[Algunderfoot]

Nicely done Fin,
Just goes to show one can accomplish anything with properly applied ordanance.

[James Ong]

About 10 years ago in my neck of the woods an old man confronted 2 guys who were burglarizing his neighbors car. The 2 perps ended up getting a couple of shotgun blasts as they were RUNNING AWAY from the scene.:AR15firin
DA refused to charge the shooter, wild wild west indeed.

[west carven]

howdy
i would have pop um... people need to respect others and their stuff.
if you dont have respect for others all hell will break loose. how can you live like that knowing that someone you pissed off gonna find you and
kick your ass. respect others, i have no problem teaching others respect!
live aloha! karma dude!...

[skategoat]

Uh oh, this is turning into a gun debate. Paging Dr. D.

[Mellow Yellow]

Hey Fin.... I found this wallet at the Bomber House last season... I'll send it back to you asap

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/jvioral/37337_large.jpg

[SunSurfer]

My understanding is that the AR-15 shoots high velocity rounds. I don't know what kind of ordinance was in Fin's weapon.
A few years ago I spent some time in East Timor with the Australian Defence Force on UN peacekeeping duty as an intensive care doc. The medical unit's commanding officer told me their rifle's high velocity bullets were lethal if they hit the target anywhere between the elbows and the knees because of the extensive tissue damage caused by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed through.
I'm not sure you can shoot an AR-15 to reliably just "wound" somebody.

In New Zealand, we have special armed police squads to deal with violent and armed offenders. The ultimate sanction society has is to take the life of the criminal. Although NZ courts do not impose the death penalty, our police occasionally shoot dead violent offenders who attempt to harm police or other members of society. They shoot to kill.
Our police will chase people speeding on the roads, but have a well publicised policy to give up the chase if speeds get too high or the chase is judged too dangerous. The result is that some chases are ended and the speeder escapes. The policy is there because a significant number of chases have ended in serious crashes and death to both the speeder and innocent road users.
Essentially, our police only carry weapons when they are prepared to use them to kill.

By picking up a rifle Fin acted in a way that can be interpreted as that he was prepared to kill to protect his property.

SunSurfer

[durace]

Nice job Mr. Doyle

[BlueB]

When I lived in South Africa, all firearm owners were told to shoot to kill in the situation of selfdefence or intruders in the house. Dead robber - no court case. Also, police recomended holow point bullets (dum-dum). First bulet finishes the shooting - exit wound is the size of baseball, at least, plus, with higher power guns, you can not shoot an inocent person behind with the bullet that pierced the robber right trough. Dum-dum explodes, so there is no danger to the public behind. However, holow point can not penetrate thicker glass or windshield, so you have to load hollow/full jacket/hollw,etc... I always had bullet in the chamber and safety on. Gun under the pillow every night... Thanks God, I only had to fire in the air once to scare of the car tieves in the night. It came very close to shooting on another occassion, when they wanted to high-jack my car (my wife was in too) on the fuel station, in the night. Gas attendant ran away into his office (what allerted me), and I already cocked the pistol. Then the high-jackers decided they didn't like the car enough, or didn't like my dark and aware look, and walked away.
Even in the wild, wild South, chasing with an arm, after someone that's running away from you would be illegal. Shooting him would lend you into prison for quite a few years...

[Fastskiguy]

why do they call them dum dum bullets?

[Jon Dahl]

[QUOTE=SunSurfer;257147]"My understanding is that the AR-15 shoots high velocity rounds."

Absolutley, that's the whole point...

"The medical unit's commanding officer told me their rifle's high velocity bullets were lethal if they hit the target anywhere between the elbows and the knees because of the extensive tissue damage caused by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed through."

Far too much B.S. here. 5.56 is a proven uderperformer in most theatres of action. The bullet used does have a tendancy to tumble, thus doing more damage internally than the caliber would otherwise do. I would prefer that platform with something along the lines of, say, the 7.62x39 or the 6.8 SPC, but I live in the country and would use it on varmits of the coyote size also. The new .30 Remington holds real promise for the AR platform.


"I'm not sure you can shoot an AR-15 to reliably just "wound" somebody."

If you are a good shot, yes you could. I've always been taught to shoot center mass, i.e. to reliably neutralize the intended target.
Just a few humble thoughts from someone who has spent some time with weapons...

[Arclite]

why do they call them dum dum bullets?

Head shot = brain soup

Watch the movie "In Bruges"

He'll tell you all about them.

[Kimo]

By picking up a rifle Fin acted in a way that can be interpreted as that he was prepared to kill to protect his property.

SunSurfer

You write too little of value for someone who writes so much.

Look at it this way, Fin chased the guy down to protect his stuff. He brought the rifle to protect himself.

If you don't value your property. Fine. Let it get stolen, but don't get down on Fin.

[norman]

WAY TO GO FIN, CONGRATS
Norman

[D-Sub]

Yes, Fin was protecting his property.
But how much is a human life worth?

Seriously, how many people here would really have been willing to pull the trigger, and in all likelihood kill the thief?

Any responses might be best in a separate "Off Topic" thread.

SunSurfer

a minor theft like that is certainly not worth the taking of a life, but thievery is unacceptable.

[TheTruth]

Hey Fin, I'm 100% for what you did. You are lucky you live in a place that still allows self-defense of one's life and property. If you lived in states such as Massachusetts, New York, or New Jersey you would be the one going to jail for trying to protect your property. The thief would only get charged with a misdemeanor, and you would get charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. Even if you got it dropped by the DA, you would still have spent a good $10,000-$15,000 defending yourself from government charges stemming from defending yourself and your property from a criminal. Sounds crazy, but the gun laws/self defense laws in some states have become draconian.

I know a person in Massachusetts who was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous weapon from trying to defend himself from an attacker swinging a pipe at his head. In self defense, he kicked the legs out from under the attacker and pined him down until the police arrived. This incident happened while he was on his own property, and the attacker was a trespasser. The police did arrest the attacker, but also arrested my friend. They stated he should have tried to "walk" away from the incident. LOL, like you can "walk" away from some nut swinging a pipe at your head while you are on your own property! My friends dangerous weapon: he was wearing shoes. Apparently in Massachusetts, shoes are classified as weapons! After hearing his side of the story, the DA refused to prosecute him, but he still has an arrest record for the rest of his life.

[Jack Michaud]

Apparently in Massachusetts, shoes are classified as weapons!

Well duh, they might have bombs in them. :rolleyes:

[TheTruth]

Well duh, they might have bombs in them. :rolleyes:

I know Jack, this incident would be funny except for the implications behind it. My friend now has an arrest record for the rest of his life for defending himself on his on property from a weapon bearing trespasser.

In Massachusetts, if you apply for a job, and if the company does a background check, his arrest for "assault and battery w/ dangerous weapon (his shoes) will will come up. In fact, he told me that in his last two job interviews, he was asked about it. He didn't get either job. Was it because he wasn't the most qualified or was it because the company was worried about his arrest record?

To add insult to injury, he just told me that his town in refusing to renew his permit to have a hand gun because of his arrest. In Massachusetts, if you want to own a handgun, even if it for just target practice or home defense, you need to go to your local police chief and ask his/her permission to own it. The police chief has the final say on gun ownership, he/she can deny it for any reason, and it is very expensive to appeal the decision. Personally, I think this is a complete violation of the 2nd Amendment, and I hope someday a federal court throws it out.

You might be saying "Sue the police for false arrest" After all he was on his own property when it happened. He tried this and it got nowhere. In Massachusetts, the thresh hold for a legal police arrest is extremely low. They can detain you, process you, and charge you with something for just about any reason with no liability on their part. It is up to the DA to determine if the charges can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" , and if not, they will drop the charges. But, you still have the arrest that never can be removed from your record.

The only thing my friend was able to do successfully do (besides getting the charges dropped) was file an complaint with the town concerning the officers conduct on his property. Actually, now he wishes he didn't even do that, because both he and his attorney now think the police chief is retaliating against him by refusing to renew his handgun permit, using the arrest record as an excuse, all because of the complaint against the police department.

He told me last week, that by the time he is done fighting the handgun decision, along with fighting the original arrest charges, he will have spent close to $20,000 in legal bills. All for defending himself against an attacker on his own property!!!

[dingbat]

Yes, Fin was protecting his property.
But how much is a human life worth?

Seriously, how many people here would really have been willing to pull the trigger, and in all likelihood kill the thief?

Any responses might be best in a separate "Off Topic" thread.

SunSurfer

I've never met him, but I'd be willing to bet that Fin's life is worth defending, with deadly force, if it were to become necessary.

Are you suggesting that he just let the guy rip him off, or confront someone who has already demonstrated that they have no respect for their fellow man, without being prepared to defend himself?

[carver]

Way to go Fin. Jack let me know. Nice to see there are those of us that will stand up. Tim

[pow4ever]

TheTruth:

I feel for you friend. I am no lawyer but Arrest != conviction?

I can be arrest for many thing. If I am not convicted; there should be no record. Once in a traffic stop I got 5 tickets(my car got stolen; so I bought a new used car but didn't have all the paper work with me at the time). I got all of them throw out. My insurance didn't go up.

I don't think it's legal for company to make hire decision based on arresting record. All the job application can ask is that have you been convicted of any crime? Otherwise it's consider document harrasment.

It could be a state thing I guess... despite the so call separation of power.
police == law enforcement
judge == decided if you violated the law
state congress == law maker

--
David

Anyway Good Job Fin/Bomber!!!

This happen near my work: stole $338,000 in aluminum
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/cops-workers-stole-338-000-in-aluminum-1.1334609

Economy is indeed in a down turn.... Crime rate is up.

[Snowman]

Keep in mind that this is the wild wild west. Landowners have no reservations about utilizing firearms with people trespassing on their land let alone ripping you off your stuff. Im all for it, mandatory training for all non felons and a fire arm for them. Douche bags will think twice about entering knowing that someone in the house has been trained to use a weapon. Call it a conscript anti douche bag army. Whats mine is not yours!

[MUD]

[quote=SunSurfer;257147]"My understanding is that the AR-15 shoots high velocity rounds."

Absolutley, that's the whole point...

"The medical unit's commanding officer told me their rifle's high velocity bullets were lethal if they hit the target anywhere between the elbows and the knees because of the extensive tissue damage caused by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed through."

Far too much B.S. here. 5.56 is a proven uderperformer in most theatres of action. The bullet used does have a tendancy to tumble, thus doing more damage internally than the caliber would otherwise do. I would prefer that platform with something along the lines of, say, the 7.62x39 or the 6.8 SPC, but I live in the country and would use it on varmits of the coyote size also. The new .30 Remington holds real promise for the AR platform.


"I'm not sure you can shoot an AR-15 to reliably just "wound" somebody."

If you are a good shot, yes you could. I've always been taught to shoot center mass, i.e. to reliably neutralize the intended target.
Just a few humble thoughts from someone who has spent some time with weapons...

I was under the impression the AR-15 WAS designed to wound the target (badly). One dead is one dead. One wounded takes out three, the wounded one and the two that get them off the battlefield.

Maybe that doesn't really apply anymore.

[Fastskiguy]

Keep in mind that this is the wild wild west. Landowners have no reservations about utilizing firearm with people trespassing on their land let alone ripping you off. Im all for it, mandatory training for all non felons and a fire arm for them. Douche bags will think twice about entering knowing that someone in the house has been trained to use a weapon. Call it a conscript anti douche bag army. Whats mine is not yours!

Absolutely, 100%, totally agree.

[BlueB]

[quote=Jon Dahl;257167]I was under the impression the AR-15 WAS designed to wound the target (badly). One dead is one dead. One wounded takes out three, the wounded one and the two that get them off the battlefield.
I thought that the most of the post WW2 millitary rifles were designed around that idea...

[Jack Michaud]

Keep in mind that this is the wild wild west. Landowners have no reservations about utilizing firearm with people trespassing on their land let alone ripping you off. Im all for it, mandatory training for all non felons and a fire arm for them. Douche bags will think twice about entering knowing that someone in the house has been trained to use a weapon. Call it a conscript anti douche bag army. Whats mine is not yours!

Agreed. I once saw a 20/20 tv special where they interviewed violent crime convicts in a maximum security prison. Really scary dudes. They asked them what was their biggest fear going into their crime. They ALL responded that it was that their intended victim and/or property owner would be packing heat. When asked if the police or jail time was a consideration, they just laughed.

[James Ong]

. The medical unit's commanding officer told me their rifle's high velocity bullets were lethal if they hit the target anywhere between the elbows and the knees because of the extensive tissue damage caused by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed through.
SunSurfer

You should have spent more time studying ballistics, instead of watching movies eh ?


.
By picking up a rifle Fin acted in a way that can be interpreted as that he was prepared to kill to protect his property.
SunSurfer

You want to live like sheep that's your business. Waitaminute, New Zealand you say?

[TheTruth]

TheTruth:

I feel for you friend. I am no lawyer but Arrest != conviction?

I can be arrest for many thing. If I am not convicted; there should be no record. Once in a traffic stop I got 5 tickets(my car got stolen; so I bought a new used car but didn't have all the paper work with me at the time). I got all of them throw out. My insurance didn't go up.

I don't think it's legal for company to make hire decision based on arresting record. All the job application can ask is that have you been convicted of any crime? Otherwise it's consider document harrasment.

It could be a state thing I guess... despite the so call separation of power.
police == law enforcement
judge == decided if you violated the law
state congress == law maker

--
David

Anyway Good Job Fin/Bomber!!!

This happen near my work: stole $338,000 in aluminum
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/cops-workers-stole-338-000-in-aluminum-1.1334609

Economy is indeed in a down turn.... Crime rate is up.

It is a state thing, and Massachusetts is the worst of the worst.

In Massachusetts, there is an document known as a CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information). One is generated everytime you have an official interaction with any police department in the state. Get falsely accused of something, you get a CORI for life. Get arrested, but all charges are later dropped, you get a CORI for life. Get a speeding ticket, you get a CORI for life. If you witnessed a crime, but had nothing to do with it, and are officially questioned by the police, you get a CORI for life. It goes on and on.

Employers can tap into the CORI system to do background checks on their employees. Volunteer organizations and schools can do the same. I had to have a clean CORI check just to be able to go to my daughters school and read a book to her kindergarden class! Every interaction with the police shows up in code, and most people do not know how to read it. Yes, it is used against people all the time. Many organizations do not want to take the time to figure out the codes, so if anything shows up on a CORI check, they just dismiss you. I have another friend (who is a 45 year old successful professional) who was not allowed to coach his sons baseball team. The league requires CORI checks on all coaches, and something came up on his. 25 years earlier he was busted at college by the campus police for underage drinking. He was celebrating his 21st birthday, the night before he actually turned 21. The policed arrested him at 11PM, 1 hour before his birthday!!! Of course, the local judge threw this out, but the absurd arrest record was his for life, only to prevent him from coaching his son 25 years later!

[Jack Michaud]

so glad I emigrated from Mass.

[bjvircks]

I was just looking over the Bomber Store and see that TD3s are out of stock and won't be available until November!!!

Someone needs to get out there and guard Fin's scrap pile for him so he can get his mill churning out more bindings!

[Dr D]

Late to the party but here goes....

1) .223 is a small round near useless on the battlefield. It was indeed designed to wound not kill. IT takes 6-8 men to take care of a wounded comrade and only 2 to carry a body. Numbers call for wounded enemy not dead ones.

high velocity is only a single component of the equation. bullet cross section is much more deadly. as well as weight. I would take a hit from an ar15 over a slow low velocity circa 1850 45-70 any day. 80 grain bullet vs 500 grain bullet


2) The little black rifle is an excellent choice for home defense as far as rifles go. Fin is a great example. its intimidating as hell. nobody was even injured which may not have been the case had fin attended the party with a rolled up newspaper ala Mass.

3) We have very little crime in the west because this happens alot. nuff said

Montana has recently passed a law affirming a citizens right to open carry and defense of self others and property with no duty to retreat. I recomend not stealing **** or harming others while visiting our fair state.

good on ya Fin:biggthump We'll no who to call when the chips are down

[TheTruth]

Montana has recently passed a law affirming a citizens right to open carry and defense of self others and property with no duty to retreat. I recomend not stealing **** or harming others while visiting our fair state.



Not all the states in the east are as draconian and unenlightened about the 2nd Amendment as Massachusetts. Up in New Hampshire, open carry is legal and it is a simple procedure to get a handgun. I believe its a similar story in Vermont. I not sure about Maine's gun laws.

Pennsylvania is a full open carry state and a "shall issue" concealed carry state. That means anyone of legal age can carry a loaded handgun on their person out in the open, and the state must issue an concealed weapons permit unless you are a convicted felon or have a history of mental illness. Pennsylvanians not only have no duty to retreat, but if you break into their homes, they have no duty to even ask why you are there or to find out if you are armed before they shoot you. Considering there is something like 2 million heavily armed deer hunters in PA, I would not recommend breaking and entering in that state either.:AR15firin

[powdahbonz]

I'm not on the far right or far left but if you come on my property, try to steal from me, try to escape from your crime, I am going to try and stop you so that you may not attempt it again. If it is my right, then I will exercise my right and will do so but by being practical, logical and to not endanger self or others nor subject myself to possible arrest. Protecting my family and my livelihood is okay by me. Doesn't matter if it's an AR15, Walther P22 or 12 gauge loaded w/ rock salt...whatever gets it done. Good for you Fin.

[scrapster]

Curious, most of the "low crime" states--Montana, Vermont, New Hampshire--also have extremely small, largely homogeneous, mostly rural populations. Is it the gun laws or the demographics? Eh, debatable. If I remember correctly, So. Central L.A. is part of "the west" too.

Anyway, I don't know Fin, but I'm glad no one was hurt, and that he got his stuff back. I'm also sorry that our friend from New Zealand was shut down in such a harsh (and I'd say childish) way. I'm sure he's big enough of a man to handle it though.

As for me, I think I live in a largely safe area, in one of the most affluent countries in the world. If I lived in S. Africa during the heyday of carjackings, I'd probably own a gun too. But I don't. The last person I know that was robbed had about $6,000 of goods ripped of from his business a few months ago. Turned out it was two local 7th graders who used to hang around his bike shop. I guess he could have shot them if this were another state--that might have taught their parents and the other school kids a lesson. I'm glad he didn't have the legal right to make that choice--and I think our community is glad too.

Come to think of it, the more I see people texting and driving around here, the more I doubt that most people have any sense of what's truly a "threat" to their own safety. (Though protecting property might be a good thing. I'd LOVE to shoot the ATV'ers cutting through my back yard and ripping things up. It would get out a alot of my pent up anger too!)

Call me a pussy if you will. I don't really care. This isn't a schoolyard.

And wait, wasn't this site supposed to be about snowboarding?:confused:

[SunSurfer]

Don't get many gun shot wounds in NZ so ballistics knowledge is not a strong point in our medical training.

My thanks to those who've increased my knowledge, and kept this thread polite and thoughtful despite the diversity of views expressed.

SunSurfer

[tex1230]

And wait, wasn't this site supposed to be about snowboarding?:confused:

It's summer...it would get pretty boring with 50 "is it winter yet" threads and one "I'm in Chile waren't you jealous" thread

[Dr D]

The west as cited no longer includes the left coast!

this is always an emotional issue for people it seems. I would love it to be an intellectual issue or at least a logical issue. My basic concern is the right to protect myself and my family. those of you who live in big cities are conditioned to call 911 and hope the cops get there in time. wait times have been researched and in the cities where you would think they would respond the quickest show that they get there in time to clean up the mess. In a rural area you can absolutely count on them not arriving in time to help. Fin is a great example of the usual outcome. Every now and then someone gets shot but only when the homeowner feels threatened to the point of self preservation kicking in.
I really tire of the assumption that just because I own a gun and am mentally prepared to use it, I am somehow blood crazed and can't wait to kill something. No normal human wants to kill another human. I have a gun solely for the purpose of surviving a situation where an abnormal human is intent on taking my life or that of my family or neighbors. Theft isn't gonna get you killed in my house but it will get you caught.

[Algunderfoot]

I am very passionate on the issue of 2nd amendment rights and the rest of our Constitution for that matter, but I avoided this eventual frey as I had a hunch it could get contentious. However, I personally feel Dr. D. just hit this shot straight off the tee.

I, as you and most American gun owners know that we are our own first responders, it is our right. Those who choose to depend on a government agency to be their's, certainly have that right too. The consiquences of that choice will be their's as well!

Thank you Dr. !

[Dr D]

[quote=Algunderfoot;257328]

I, as you and most American gun owners know that we are our own first responders, it is our right. Those who choose to depend on a government agency to be their's, certainly have that right too. The consiquences of that choice will be their's as well!

quote]

well put al

[Shred Gruumer]

I used to shoot anything that moved im my back yard.. Half the fun is the kick and actually seeing if you could hit it the dammm thing (306)... Love the beginning of the movie The Shooter with Marky Mark...

"Theres only two that I know that can make that shot...ones dead and the other one they tried to bury in the desert" how do I know... I still got the shovel...:biggthump or something like that.

RSS

[carvedog]

Well done Fin. **** letting those guys get away. We certainly don't want the price of bindings going up because some sticky-fingered-****-for-brains decides to take your stuff.

I prolly would have winged him just to make a point. :eek:

I used to have a Ford Van that I proudly sported an NRA sticker on one back window and my Grateful Dead dancing bears sticker on the other. That made a few people scratch their heads for sure.

sunsurfer - don't mind us rednecks. Many of us have grown up around guns and don't consider them any more lethal than electricity. Always to be respected for sure.

There is a quite a mental checklist that I go through when handling a weapon for sport or hunting that precludes any accidents. I can't speak for Fin but all indications are that he is one of the more reasonable humans that I have encountered and would suspect he has his own protocol.

As mentioned not speaking for Fin but I imagine that he might not have even pointed his weapon at the thief.
For me this would be something like this.

Dog identifies problem.
Visual check confirms nature of problem.
Unlock gun from case.
Retrieve magazine from separate storage.
Confirm safety on, chamber a round.

Think about putting on shirt. Decide against it - not that cold.
Hotfoot it to thiefs escape route area.
Hail thief to cease, desist and lay down with weapon at the ready
( ie weapon ready in front of body barrel pointing skyward ). Depending on your threat level assessment maybe do this with the gun more pointed in the direction of the thief to be prepared. Since he was carrying a pair of ?50 lb bags of aluminum he was not an immediate threat requiring say pointing the weapon at his head. IMHO.

For me the only way this would go to target acquisition would be if the thief did something stupid like pull out a weapon and prepare to charge and/or fire.

If thief brandishes knife and/or prepares to attack it is time to indicate locked and loaded status of my weapon and admonish them to surrender.
Safety off. Time for a warning shot in the dirt, followed by a foot or leg shot if possible.

If thief brandishes a firearm then it would be time to apply lethal or debilitating force.

If thief refuses to lay down and instead runs away then he would get away if it was me.

So it's not quite like the Wild West - "I got a gun, let's shoot somethin'"

My two cents. Actually looks more like a half dollars worth. Don't forget to adjust for inflation.

[Fastskiguy]

Dog identifies problem.

Just wanna throw some props out to the dog in this case! Way to go!

[Skully]

Just wanna throw some props out to the dog in this case! Way to go!

Yeah, What the WTF is up with you's guy's dogs?

My Dog would be slobbering all over the thief, and helping him haul the stolen schwag to his car / wherever it is going! (All the while trying to get the thief to chuck a tennis ball...)

(Way to go Fin BTW..)

(And, as always, this thread is worthless without pics...)

[Dr D]

my dog only barks when something is hinky! or when his dinner is late :lol:

seriously he has a whole different take on life when things aren't quite looking kosher. He'll let me know then go ask the thief to chuck his ball after checking pockets for treats. Equal opportunity pooch:eplus2:

I don't think he would harm anyone unless I was getting the hell beat out of me and then I am not sure he would intervene particularly if the guy gave him a treat first. I will just have to trust the good folks from Kimber arms to get my back!

[Dr D]

This whole conversation and its yearly reappearance make me think we need a quiver thread in the off topic section to show off our arsenals.:lol:

Probably need a health warning for you easterners wouldn't want to cause any heart attacks. :eplus2:

[Dr D]

:eplus2::eplus2::eplus2:

[durace]

Watch it with the you Easterners... :D Live Free or Die

So have you started the "Show us your Gun" thread yet?
I dont know about Diversity in that pic I don't see as Clint Smith would call it
"one of those things you carry so you can get to your guns".
Paul

[b0ardski]

:AR15firinDefinately some overlap in your quiver there D;)

[Helmut Karvlow]

I used to shoot anything that moved im my back yard.. Half the fun is the kick and actually seeing if you could hit it the dammm thing (306)... Love the beginning of the movie The Shooter with Marky Mark...

"Theres only two that I know that can make that shot...ones dead and the other one they tried to bury in the desert" how do I know... I still got the shovel...:biggthump or something like that.

RSS

Things Shred has killed;
the teddi bear from his x with a 45 long barrel chrome revolver all 6 shots.
a jib-bonk snow board with a 12 gauge with magnum shells
oakley sun glasses with same shot gun.
thousand of frogs with a 357. late at night with a flashlite.
Shred, I need help with the rest. my brain is old and I drank out of alot of aluminum cans in my life:freak3::freak3:

[Jack Michaud]

Hail thief to cease, desist and lay down with weapon at the ready
( ie weapon ready in front of body barrel pointing skyward ). Depending on your threat level assessment maybe do this with the gun more pointed in the direction of the thief to be prepared. Since he was carrying a pair of ?50 lb bags of aluminum he was not an immediate threat requiring say pointing the weapon at his head. IMHO.

For me the only way this would go to target acquisition would be if the thief did something stupid like pull out a weapon and prepare to charge and/or fire.


Interesting. If the safety is on, why not aim at the perp? That would increase intimidation and reduce the chances of him going for a weapon, no? Also it would save you a step and eliminate some delay if he were to draw.

[durace]

It's the first rule:
Never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to destroy.
At that point it isn't needed.

[Dr D]

It's the first rule:
Never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to destroy.
At that point it isn't needed.
safety first:biggthump

[Dr D]

:biggthumpkids learn that at age 12 here. don't put your finger in the trigger guard until you are pointed at the target either. most of us have practiced to the point that there isn't a significant time delay from ready arms to ready aim fire.:AR15firin

and we don't need automatics either one shot one kill less muss and less fuss

no collateral damage with one round well placed

[scrapster]

"It's the first rule:
Never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to destroy.
At that point it isn't needed."

Learned that one the hard way from a Vietnam vet who destroyed my last cap gun when I was about ten years old. Made quite a lasting impression.

I also think the east /west thing is pretty overblown. Lots of gun owners out this way, rural and urban. Though for some reason ownership just seems to be a less prominent part of the overall culture in the north east and mid-Atlantic. (Probably many reasons actually-- cultural backgrounds, loss of hunting areas, restrictions, proximity to emergency response, etc.) While I know some vociferous gun owners, I know many more who would have to think twice if you asked them where there weapons even were--which of course poses its own hazards.

Good story out of Harlem this week about a 72 year old man killing two, and wounding two armed robbers who broke into his store and started pistol whipping an employee. Looks like he's being treated just how most reasonable people would hope he'd be treated--with respect, and that any penalties for not registering his shotgun when he bought it 30 years ago will minimal, and treated separately from the incident itself.

Anyway, always a fascinating topic from all angles, from technical and legal to sociological.

[durace]

I don't think there is an east/west in gun ownersip I think Dr.D was referencing the fact that the "opponents" to the thread were from our coast... Not a fair representation of how things are here since there are more "Rod and Bottles" in NH than post offices.:D

[Dr D]

I am a big fan of the whole "live free or die thing" its all in good humor. some of my favorite gun buddies are from west virginia which is east enough as far as I am concerned. I went to grad school in SC which is pretty gun toting and redneck. ITs still on a whole different level here.
I think it has more to do with rural living (its over 100miles to the next town of any size) Montana takes 10 or 11 hours of driving to get all the way across. you can drive 300 miles without seeing anything manmade other than a fencepost in some places. We have to rely on ourselves. the thought of relying on govt is a joke here.

[Dr D]

Being forced to rely on govt is unthinkable for most of us!

[carvedog]

Interesting. If the safety is on, why not aim at the perp? That would increase intimidation and reduce the chances of him going for a weapon, no? Also it would save you a step and eliminate some delay if he were to draw.

Others responded well. I didn't see this until just now.

Once I have chambered a round, I consider anything in front of the barrel dead or ready to be. Safety on or not. Once you point it at something you better be ready to kill right then.

I have never pointed a gun at a human being. Hope I never have to.

[PolyMathMan]

Did you have any trouble getting your weapon back? Did they take it, or just leave it with you?

[Jack Michaud]

Once you point it at something you better be ready to kill right then.

I don't understand why...? Maybe I watch too much CSI.

[durace]

Because that is what a gun is for. If the intent is to threaten someone bring a bat. It has more than one purpose, a gun does not.
For people that take shooting sports seriously there is a set of rules that are followed. Guns are not toys and any mistake can have a huge impact on many lives. A safety is like a seat belt or a helmet it is a mechanical device that can fail. People involved in shooting sports understand the possible outcome of a loaded weapon.
Just my 2 cents.
Paul

[NateW]

Am I the only one to whom the post above seems like a pretentious non-answer? Let me try:


I don't understand why...?

Because accidents happen, especially under stress. If you aim at someone to "intimidate," and you flinch (suppose it startles you when he drops everything, or turns to run away) then you may be in the position of having shot someone without legal justification.

[TheTruth]

Because that is what a gun is for. If the intent is to threaten someone bring a bat. It has more than one purpose, a gun does not.
For people that take shooting sports seriously there is a set of rules that are followed. Guns are not toys and any mistake can have a huge impact on many lives. A safety is like a seat belt or a helmet it is a mechanical device that can fail. People involved in shooting sports understand the possible outcome of a loaded weapon.
Just my 2 cents.
Paul

100% right. That's why I have a major problem with the anti-gun hysterics in Massachusetts. The prevailing mindset, especially in the uber liberal eastern third of the state is all guns are evil. I know of politicians around Boston who have proposed that parents should be brought up on child neglect/abuse charges for even allowing their children to touch a gun, even if it is for a supervised target practice session or legal hunting. The problem is, that a growing segment of the population has learned no respect for the damage a gun can do if not handled properly. It is not a toy used to threaten someone.

In contrast, other eastern states such as NH,VT, PA, and WV that have strong gun ownership rights and maintain a strong gun club and hunting culture, children are taught a very early age to handle and respect guns. Gun ownership is a right, but that right includes responsibilities.

[Jack Michaud]

Because that is what a gun is for. If the intent is to threaten someone bring a bat. It has more than one purpose, a gun does not.
For people that take shooting sports

I'm confused. If it only has one purpose, how can it be used for sport?

I think if you can't trust yourself to control your weapon, you shouldn't have one.

[NateW]

I'm confused. If it only has one purpose, how can it be used for sport?

:lol: Well played!

[durace]

"I'm confused. If it only has one purpose, how can it be used for sport?"

In every shooting sport the gun does the same thing, it destroys the target.

"I think if you can't trust yourself to control your weapon, you shouldn't have one."

To use a Jackism on this. The next time you go to the track you should leave your leathers and helmet at home. If you don't trust you ability to ride a motorcycle you shouldn't have one.

"Am I the only one to whom the post above seems like a pretentious non-answer? Let me try:"

Were those answers simple enough for you?

Paul

[Jack Michaud]

"I'm confused. If it only has one purpose, how can it be used for sport?"

In every shooting sport the gun does the same thing, it destroys the target.


Seems to me that <i>sport</i> and <i>killing</i> are two different purposes. And I'll add a third: threatening/show of force.


"I think if you can't trust yourself to control your weapon, you shouldn't have one."

To use a Jackism on this. The next time you go to the track you should leave your leathers and helmet at home. If you don't trust you ability to ride a motorcycle you shouldn't have one.

Touch&eacute;. Not sure that's comparable though. Many factors beyond your control dictate the use of protective moto gear at the track. An unexpected loss of traction or someone else wadding into you, etc, are reasonable risks you accept there. Pulling the trigger of a gun by mistake would seem to me like randomly whacking the throttle wide open in mid corner, spinning the rear wheel. A rookie mistake. If I didn't <i>know</i> I was not going to do that, I wouldn't be on the track.

But I dunno, stealing stuff outdoors is one thing, but if a stranger is in my house, the m-f'er will probably be looking down the barrel of my (for now imaginary) gun. Definitely if he is making threatening/advancing movements. And then if he does anything other than what I tell him to do he's worm food.

On another note, all this Mass bashing reminds me of one of my favorite bumperstickers: "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun." Baahahaha. Is he dead yet?

[durace]

Killing is a "banned" word now days in "shooting sports". I haven't shot at anything with a pulse in a long time, nothing against it I just don't. It gives the Anti- something to point at.
So since what we do is pretend when we shoot at paper I have a question for you Jack.
Here is the scenario. (that is what we call it so we don't feel so stupid shooting $50 worth of ammo into a pile of dirt). You wake up at 2 A.M. to Lassie barking from her crate. She doesn't bark if one of the kids gets up to go potty so yo get up to check. You grab your (now here is where I read the rest of your questions) loaded AR (I'll use the one from your first pic only we'll make it a Bushmaster Made right up the road in ME and we'll put a flashlight on it...good for home defense). It has a round chambered and the safety is off, you step into the hallway hit the pulse button on the light and see Lassie is right. There is a guy with a blue bandanna and three teardrop tattoos 22 feet down the hall. You bring the locked and loaded weapon to the fire position and I'll assume you are a right hand shooter, close your left eye and point it at his chest. Remembering that your POA/POI is off because he is so close. You hear a loud noise and the door to your left flies open right next to him. In the next split second you need to decide if it s his partner with a gun, the wind, your 6 year old. Remember you are locked,loaded,off safe and on target...
I think my way is safer.:D

God I love Kennedy jokes!

[PolyMathMan]

Gee, lots of pro and anti here.

In short, weapons are an option, not a necessity.

When it's 3 am, and something's wrong, I don't want to have to walk down the stairs with nothing but my dick in my hand.

Kinda like "Walk softly, but carry a big stick."

[Jon Dahl]

you step into the hallway hit the pulse button on the light and see Lassie is right. In the next split second you need to decide if it s his partner with a gun, the wind, your 6 year old.


Been there, done that, in these types of scenarios. House clearings, check, neighborhood wanna-be gangsta's threatening my life, check, kicking doors open and not knowing what's on the other side, check. Safety on, check. That is what it is there for. If it is unholstered, I'm ready to use it, the safety is THE last link in the system before applying deadly force. ALWAYS verify what you are shooting at BEFORE hand. ALWAYS.

[Jack Michaud]

Point taken durace, but all I'm saying is I would either leave my finger outside the trigger guard or leave the safety on or both until I was ready to kill, so I don't see a problem with pointing it at someone to threaten them I guess. I agree it's an escalated form of threatening vs. just holding the gun pointed at the sky. I think if I was detaining an attacker who I had ordered to the ground until the police arrived, I'd be holding it against the guy's neck.

[Dr D]

Point taken durace, but all I'm saying is I would either leave my finger outside the trigger guard or leave the safety on or both until I was ready to kill, so I don't see a problem with pointing it at someone to threaten them I guess. I agree it's an escalated form of threatening vs. just holding the gun pointed at the sky. I think if I was detaining an attacker who I had ordered to the ground until the police arrived, I'd be holding it against the guy's neck.
those are both steps in the cycle jack.
safety on finger outside the trigger guard weapon pointed down or up (safe direction) when a valid target presents itself the weapon is aimed and the safety comes off. the trigger finger is applied last. many things can be happening while this is going on. but a well trained shooter will always follow a disciplined checklist from start to finish. how fast it happens depends on the situation and the shooters skill level. get training if you are going to be a gun owner and shooter. An untrained gunowner is a safety hazard

[Jack Michaud]

get training if you are going to be a gun owner and shooter. An untrained gunowner is a safety hazard

Absolutely. But at this point the only way I'm buying a gun is if there is a rash of break-ins or worse in our vicinity.

[durace]

It's funny (OK not funny more sick) a few years ago you never saw any home invasions or armed roberies on the local NH news now there is one or more stories a day. I blame the violent video games! DOWN WITH WII :eplus2:

[Dr D]

I blane a poor economy! people are desperate so more theft.


Jack Jack nothing like closing the barn door after the cows get out!

get the training now when you don't think you need it and it will be there when you do. nobosy says you have to buy and arsenal and start waving it around. one gun and a safe to keep it in is a good start. The training is the most important part tho. even if youdon't buy one go get the training:biggthump

[Helmut Karvlow]

What ever happened to being responsible for your actions???? like my Dad raised me.
If I choose to rob someone and get shot and or killed......it's my fault not the person who shot me, he did'nt wake up that morning and say I'm guna kill somebody today.........but I would have made the decision to rob someone.
would the punishment fit the crime???? who knows, you liberals and conservatives can fight that out. but it would ALL be on me,
the bad guy!!!! this is all the pussifacation of America!!!

[durace]

It's too bad this didn't start a few weeks earlier. There was a very good class up in Augusta ME on the 17th put on as an action pistol/IDPA event with a compatition on the 18th if you wanted to.

[carvedog]

I want one of these

http://www.locksaf.com/biometric-safe-manufacturer/

With one of these inside

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg169-e.htm

[scrapster]

Makes a lot of sense for individuals to weigh the pros and cons of ownership--there are both, certainly.

For me, even carrying pepper spray (when I lived in a rough part of Phoenix) effected how I perceived things, leaning towards the paranoid. It also became the first, and dominant option that I usually thought of in any uncomfortable situation.

As the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail. (Maybe I should just own more tools ;)) I already know my quiver should be bigger :biggthump

[philw]

It's interesting how odd some of your views seem to me, coming from another country.

I can't quite remember where the funding came from for those guys mentioned on the first page, but it dried up in the early 2000s for some reason I suspect Fox news will never talk about.

And then... I think Hillary would now have us put all those IRA guys back in jail, or at least that's how I interpret what she's saying. Even the innocent ones.

Hmm.

[Bullwings]

I'll say this first before I present my view/oppinion. Guns are fun to use for hobbies and recreational activities and I go to the target range and also shoot skeet and trap.

However, I think the world would be much better off if all guns were eliminated. Unlike spears and the bow & arrow, which were most likely FIRST invented for hunting purposes, the gun was invented as a tool for war and to be used on people. The penetration capabilities of guns were great at close range against heavily armored knights and infantry, but their inconsistent accuracy made them useless for hunting.

Guns are too easy to use as far as killing something. What's difficult, is training someone to be responsible with them. Bow and arrows (not compound) on the other hand are super difficult to use, especially anything with a draw weight of 50 lbs. or more. The training required to use one and to be able to hit a pie sized plate consistently from 20 yards is pretty tough, thus deterring many from using/becoming proficient with them.

That said, I don't think eliminating guns would reduce crimes (maybe drive by and free way shootings... i live in los angeles), but it would likely reduce the number of accidental shootings. It might however reduce homicides, it's a little bit more difficult to kill someone who is aware with a bat or knife than it is to kill them with a gun. Also, I don't see criminals turning to the bow and arrow as an alternative weapon if guns were eliminated.

Where the hell am I going with this? I don't know... haha. I just recently got into archery about 5 months ago, and it's been a lot more fun than shooting guns. Also, hunting with a bow & arrow is a lot more challenging than with a rifle accurate up to 800 yards away. Most shots with a bow will be at 30 yards or less. Although olympic and some other shooters are accurate up to 80+ yards, it's not realistic to hunt at that range. You really have to have some skill with both the bow and with stalking, concealment, tracking, and ambushing.

So yeah, I like guns, but I think bow and arrows are better and require a TON more skill to use. I also think it would be better if we reverted back to bow and arrow days... the end.

[Dr D]

Helmut my man montana is rubbing off on you:biggthump

people kill peole not inanimate objects. south africa and australia and the uk have already realized more violent crime since banning guns. bad guys will still have guns or just use a bat or a knife or a candlestick in the library with professor ****ing plum.

blaming a hunk of metal for societies ills is retarded

[BlueB]

south africa and australia and the uk have already realized more violent crime since banning guns. bad guys will still have guns...
Shure they would! There are more ilegal firearms in SA then licensed ones. With the stashes left over from "struggle" years and the 3 neighbouring countries that had civil wars in the recent past, there is an arsenal out there! I can go and find myself an AK47 to buy, in a halven day or so.

[Jack Michaud]

Jack Jack nothing like closing the barn door after the cows get out!

Dude I'm right with you.... but "the committee" is too fearful. The foot is down.

Bullwings, the world would also be a better place if box-cutters were eliminated too. :smashfrea

What Helmut said + 1

[Bullwings]

That said, I don't think eliminating guns would reduce crimes (maybe drive by and free way shootings... i live in los angeles), but it would likely reduce the number of accidental shootings. It might however reduce homicides, it's a little bit more difficult to kill someone who is aware with a bat or knife than it is to kill them with a gun. Also, I don't see criminals turning to the bow and arrow as an alternative weapon if guns were eliminated.


Since people don't know how to read, I have to quote myself. And I didn't say banning guns, I said eliminating guns... As in, they didn't exist, anywhere, at all, and no one knew what the hell they were.

Human nature won't change, but it'll make it a lot more difficult for human nature to carry out certain acts, for example:

Human nature is that people like to eat. There weren't too many fat people 500 years+ ago, which is why art epitomized heavier set women - it was hard to become fat. Well, food is everywhere now in modern industrialized nations, and a whole crap load of people are fat because it's easy. If people still had to grow their own food and/or hunt for it, there would a lot less fat people. It still doesn't change the fact that they like to eat though - it's just harder.

Human nature is that there is a certain desire to travel/explore/discover new places (assuming other basic needs have been met). Well, ships, airplanes, cars, and GPS makes all of that easier. If you took all of that away, it would be a lot harder to do. Does it mean that no one would do it? Certainly not, most of the known world was discovered before cars, airplanes, and GPS.

All of this is true of guns. Will there still be crime and acts of violence? Of course, I never said it would eliminate or even reduce any of that, other than maybe the number of homicides. I'm also sure that wars fought with sticks, knives, and bows and arrows would have a much lower casualty rate than those fought with guns, tanks, and bombs. Case in point, the 100 years war between England and France had much less loss of life than WWII fought between ONLY Russian and Germany even though that portion of the war only lasted 4 years (you could probably combine the majority of European wars with the exception of WWI and the number of casualties would still be less). It's a lot harder to kill people with bows and swords than it is with guns and tanks. Human nature, wars will still be fought, but the loss of life will be less.

So I still stand by my point, complete elimination of guns world wide would make this a better place. I'm not talking about banning through stupid legislation and laws either - that's just dumb and doesn't work. Of course this will never happen, but the argument I'm trying to make or refute, rather is this one:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

True

But guns make it a whole lot easier and efficient. As a whole, they're bad, and the only reason to have them is because other people have them. It's just like nukes. They're bad, but the only reason to keep them around is because other nations have them. It's really circular reasoning as to arguing how having guns at all is a good thing.

[Fastskiguy]

Human nature won't change, but it'll make it a lot more difficult for human nature to carry out certain acts, for example:

I guess I'm pro-gun but I don't live around crazy people. If 99% of people are responsible and some goof ball opens fire and kills somebody for spitting on the sidewalk or something, well, that's a bad deal. I'm sure nobody on this board would think of shooting at someone because they look differently or act differently but there's a few nut cases that would, they're just looking for the chance to screw with people. So I think it's a valid argument...make them harder to get and you lessen these types of situations. Of course, disarming your law abiding people is a bad deal too. Thus the controversy!

[Jack Michaud]

Bullwings, I read and understood your silly argument. No need to quote yourself.

[Kimo]

Reminds of a bumper sticker that I think applies here.

"Guns kill people the way Rosie O'Donnel's spoon made her fat."

[pcdenver]

fin, i hope you're still skimming this wacky thread

this story put a huge smile on my face
nice going!

[balboajeff]

The guy is in the backyard throwing bags of chips over the fence, what are you doing to do ? , mince on down there and say " hey man that's totally uncool, I need you to respect my boundries ."
The guy set the playing field , way to play Fin.