DescentBB

While slick likes to post links to the bad handling of guns, Here is just the opposite. While the left keeps up the evil of gun ownership, if they strip that away then this grandmother and her husband would be dead. Of course you will not hear the liberals lament the deaths of the victims by stripping the rights of the elderly to protect themselves. If I wasn't more cynical I'd say the left see's this as a way of culling the elderly so social security doesn't go broke so quick.:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/08/gr ... tcmp=hpbt4

It's a tragic situation, not a place for hero worship.

amen, vision

Being a liberal woman, I say, good for granny. She got rid of one more scumbag predator. I'd have done the same thing with some home invader without hesitation.

The day people like woody stop masturbating over guns is the day our country can finally grow the hell up.

callmeslick wrote:amen, vision

And yet slick, you have no problem demonizing the opposite. What a classic example of hypocrisy on display.

Top Gun wrote:The day people like woody stop masturbating over guns is the day our country can finally grow the hell up.

and the day people like you stop masturbating over making people defenseless is the day our country will become safer.

I have no problem with people defending themselves, but you and your ilk treat it like a goddamn fetish, or at the very least a massive compensation piece. Keep a shotgun in a safe in your bedroom in case your home gets invaded, but quit with the Rambo delusions.

God you people are confused. "Tragedy" my ass. Happy ending to a nasty affair. The tragedy was that they let him out.

TG maybe you'd better shoot a scatter gun a time or two before you recommend it as a home defense option for an elderly woman. A .38 pistol was exactly her speed, and it got the job done. No need to change a thing here except the prison system.

EDIT: As for "hero worship", that lady probably saved her husband's life (not to mention herself), and prevented the same thing from happening to someone else. She is absolutely a hero, and it ought to be talked about.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:"Tragedy" my ass. Happy ending to a nasty affair. The tragedy was that they let him out.

How very Christian and compassionate. The world is easy to navigate when everything is framed in the black and white of good vs evil.

You mean like in the case of opposites?

As far as I'm concerned, Vision, it's people like you who lack the determination to prevent society from deteriorating into chaos (breaking into people's houses for drugs, and threatening their lives) to begin with, so for you "compassion" is a revolving door plummeting downwards. It is my experience that for the uninitiated "compassion" in a potentially life-threatening situation is better known as cowardice. It may be easier on your conscience or your pride to give it a nice, romantic face. I call bull****. Compassion is something that you have from the position of possessing the upper-hand, not when someone has one up on you.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TG maybe you'd better shoot a scatter gun a time or two before you recommend it as a home defense option for an elderly woman. A .38 pistol was exactly her speed, and it got the job done. No need to change a thing here except the prison system.

Do you really think that was the point of what I said? Sorry, but I have better items to memorize the minutiae of than implements which are solely designed to kill things.

Maybe you ought to overcome that and take a shooting class. That way Rambo isn't your only exposure to guns (or haven't you actually experienced that either), and you don't sound like such a tool when you're talking on the subject.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It is my experience that for the uninitiated "compassion" in a potentially life-threatening situation is better known as cowardice.

I'm sorry you've had such terrible experiences trying to feel compassion for people outside your in-group. On the contrary, maintaining compassion in the face of adversity without falling into the trap of violence is not only difficult, but courageous. It takes courage to come face your innermost fears and overcome your primitive impulses and say "no, I will not forget that this person is a human being who is suffering and deserves redemption." I guess they don't really teach that in bible school though.

Yeah, I suppose you would feel that vision if your mother or sister was being stabbed and beaten with a crow bar. When you compassionately asked him to please stop and he doesn't, then what? Tell your mother or sister that you can do nothing because you are a compassionate guy and you have to understand the attacker is a human being. Thorne is right vision, your attempts at explaining your compassion are in reality trying to paint your cowardice another color.

Top Gun wrote:I have no problem with people defending themselves, but you and your ilk treat it like a goddamn fetish, or at the very least a massive compensation piece. Keep a shotgun in a safe in your bedroom in case your home gets invaded, but quit with the Rambo delusions.

Thorne is right again, elderly would have a hard time handling a Joe Biden home defensive tool. And where does using a pistol instead of a shotgun make you a Rambo type? Quite the opposite me thinks.

woodchip wrote:Tell your mother or sister that you can do nothing because you are a compassionate guy and you have to understand the attacker is a human being.

As I've mentioned dozens of times before the idea is to have a comprehensive plan for safety that allows one to neutralize an attack without killing. It can be done. Guns are the cheap, fast, brainless way out for a culture that is raised on being cheap, fast, and brainless.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Tell your mother or sister that you can do nothing because you are a compassionate guy and you have to understand the attacker is a human being.

As I've mentioned dozens of times before the idea is to have a comprehensive plan for safety that allows one to neutralize an attack without killing. It can be done. Guns are the cheap, fast, brainless way out for a culture that is raised on being cheap, fast, and brainless.

vision, if someone breaks into my house, they are doing so with the evil intent to either steal, rape or murder. Once they enter by force or stealth, they automatically forfeit their rights, even to life, if they come face to face with me, the homeowner.

Granny can just use her ninja mojo.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Tell your mother or sister that you can do nothing because you are a compassionate guy and you have to understand the attacker is a human being.

As I've mentioned dozens of times before the idea is to have a comprehensive plan for safety that allows one to neutralize an attack without killing. It can be done. Guns are the cheap, fast, brainless way out for a culture that is raised on being cheap, fast, and brainless.

The force is strong in this one.

tunnelcat wrote:...they are doing so with the evil intent to either steal, rape or murder. Once they enter by force or steath, they automatically forfeit their rights, even to life, if they come face to face with me, the homeowner.

I'm sorry, I can never demonize a person as being evil and having no right to life. In every person I see a child whose life is the result of a myriad of circumstances and who deserves infinite chances to be a better person. This applies to equally to petty thiefs and mass murderers. This is the most noble of principals and worth dying for, because to live in a world without this sentiment is not a world worth living in. Jesus would probably agree, and I know the Buddha would for sure.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe you ought to overcome that and take a shooting class. That way Rambo isn't your only exposure to guns (or haven't you actually experienced that either), and you don't sound like such a tool when you're talking on the subject.

I wouldn't even be averse to going to a firing range someday and trying out a bit of shooting, it'd be on the level of a "well that was fun" experience and stay at that. I sure as hell would never even consider keeping a firearm at home.

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I have no problem with people defending themselves, but you and your ilk treat it like a goddamn fetish, or at the very least a massive compensation piece. Keep a shotgun in a safe in your bedroom in case your home gets invaded, but quit with the Rambo delusions.

Thorne is right again, elderly would have a hard time handling a Joe Biden home defensive tool. And where does using a pistol instead of a shotgun make you a Rambo type? Quite the opposite me thinks.

Again I love the mental complex that focuses on the type of gun I happened to mention in the second or two it took me to get the word from brain to text box as opposed to the overall point of the post. Protip: if you swap out "handgun" for "shotgun," it doesn't change a damn thing about what I was saying.

In the world we live in, TG, what you wrote may give rise to certain assumptions. In the U.K. a shotgun is all they are allowed to own, and the U.S. Vice President--an anti-gunner--has suggested that a shotgun is all that is needed for home defense. A shotgun is basically all most anti-gunners are willing to allow, although they have in a mind a single or double-shot model, preferably stylized out of the financial reach of the average citizen. A good pump or semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip (several anti-gunners just fainted dead away) is actually a good defense option , but it's still a little large for close-quarters, and it takes a relatively strong hand to keep from being injured or losing control due to recoil.

There you go. Grown "men" anxious about home invasion...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There you go. Grown "men" anxious about home invasion...

Doesn't prove that those fears are rational. That's how fears work. I for one never worry about home invasion and I've lived in some pretty rotten neighborhoods at different times in my life. Once, I remember coming home from grammar school and seeing the front door of our apartment ajar, obviously hacked open with a crowbar. I was probably 11 years old but even as a little kid I felt bad for the people who stole our stuff. Looking back, my religious upbringing might have given me overconfidence in my safety (why would God let a kid get hurt?), but these days my lack of fear comes from detachment from material possessions, including my body.

It's certain they don't own a firearm...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's certain they don't own a firearm...

So the false confidence of owning a firearm is all that matters?

So the false confidence of being detached from material goods and your body is what everyone should aspire to? I bet you tell women to just lay back and enjoy it when they are being raped. Or kids should learn to be so detached that there is no worry about taking the candy the nice man is offering...speak about a irrational outlook on life vision.

toddlers. 27 this year. 'Nuff said.

Yeah slick, it's all about the children.

and the adults, irresponsible enough to allow them to access a live weapon. Yup.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There you go. Grown "men" anxious about home invasion...

Doesn't prove that those fears are rational. That's how fears work. I for one never worry about home invasion and I've lived in some pretty rotten neighborhoods at different times in my life. Once, I remember coming home from grammar school and seeing the front door of our apartment ajar, obviously hacked open with a crowbar. I was probably 11 years old but even as a little kid I felt bad for the people who stole our stuff. Looking back, my religious upbringing might have given me overconfidence in my safety (why would God let a kid get hurt?), but these days my lack of fear comes from detachment from material possessions, including my body.

Using your own philosophy on making the world a better place, wouldn’t it be better if you survived an encounter rather than a criminal?

Or does that kind of logic hurt your brain.

Spidey wrote:Using your own philosophy on making the world a better place, wouldn’t it be better if you survived an encounter rather than a criminal?

Or does that kind of logic hurt your brain.

Heh, I knew someone would say that. No, it wouldn't make the world a better place and here is why. The idea is not to simply have a world where we save the good people and remove the bad people. The goal is root out the cause of what makes people good or bad in the first place. People who are already good don't give us as much information as someone who is bad who then becomes good. This knowledge allows us to become stronger as species and civilization. We need the introspection of people who were able to overcome their own wickedness to give us insight on how to recognize when things start to go wrong. The good need to work with the bad to make a better world. We all do this already to some extent. Who here hasn't shared experiences with a young person who was screwing up their life? If we had rehabilitation centers instead of prisons we would know a lot more about the criminal mind and we would be much further along in bringing peace to society. But instead we ignore and/or kill people who all started out as innocent children with all the hope and possibilities of the world.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...they are doing so with the evil intent to either steal, rape or murder. Once they enter by force or stealth, they automatically forfeit their rights, even to life, if they come face to face with me, the homeowner.

I'm sorry, I can never demonize a person as being evil and having no right to life. In every person I see a child whose life is the result of a myriad of circumstances and who deserves infinite chances to be a better person. This applies to equally to petty thiefs and mass murderers. This is the most noble of principals and worth dying for, because to live in a world without this sentiment is not a world worth living in. Jesus would probably agree, and I know the Buddha would for sure.

vision, If you were a woman and a man broke into your house with God knows what intent, I'm sure you'd rethink that opinion. If I were a man however, I'd be more likely to tackle and beat the crap out of the guy instead of killing him, then let the law deal with him properly afterwards. If that intruder breaks in and is armed, the situation changes drastically. Shoot first and ask questions later.

vision wrote:The idea is not to simply have a world where we save the good people and remove the bad people.

Certainly not, but that is a very extreme example, I was referring only to a single encounter.

Once he kills you, while you are trying to give the poor fool a break, your potential to do good is snuffed out forever, and only the criminal who doesn't give a damn is left.

tunnelcat wrote:vision, If you were a woman and a man broke into your house with God knows what intent, I'm sure you'd rethink that opinion.

You've been conditioned to think that way. Violence knows no gender. People have tried over and over again to put bizarre conditionals on my philosophy and it always stands up.

Spidey wrote:[Certainly not, but that is a very extreme example, I was referring only to a single encounter.

Once he kills you, while you are trying to give the poor fool a break, your potential to do good is snuffed out forever, and only the criminal who doesn't give a damn is left.

This perfectly illustrates the core of my philosophy. It's selfless and and aims at a much larger than most people's egos can handle.

I guarantee that your empty philosophy is ineffective to the lofty ends you claim, Vision. That's the real problem, in my view. In the end you lose your life, or the life of a loved one, and fail to meet an evil person with the response necessary to stop their evil, or to "redeem" them.

There are some sentiments mixed in there that in and of themselves sound good, but you diverge from reality at some terribly crucial points.One of the aspects of this philosophy that is very twisted is the belief that an evil person is redeemable just because you view them in a romantic way, from childhood. Every person goes through life with the same responsibility. There is a place for allowing that a person may need to be "redeemed" from a terrible life, where they may not have known some of the influences that are so important for healthy development (love, compassion, forgiveness, ...). These people's lives are a result of the evils or evil irresponsibility of those who came before them. I will state that neither reality nor society owes either party anything in this case, which should be an appropriately sobering thought. However, I have never known redemption to take the form of a victim who will offer no effective resistance to the evil they are confronted with--that in itself is just confusion. Empty philosophy cannot redeem anyone. Love can in some cases (I would say not in any case where someone is threatening a life--it's tough love at that point). A good hard dose of reality may be the only thing that will break through in others. A good beating, or a bullet, followed by jail time would do more good than all of the romantic and "compassionate" words you could get out before someone has their way with you or anyone else if their chosen path does not include redemption. It's very important to understand that some actions are deserving of death, and though there is little chance in such a case for redemption, the legitimate precedent set for the value of lives involved, and the extremity of the act committed WILL save others from going down the same road easily.

Myself, I pretty much draw the line for compassion at attempting to harm another person. Compassion is not so strange to me--I would never kill someone just because they broke into my house. I would hold them at gunpoint in case they were armed, and I would shoot to incapacitate if necessary, but I reserve lethal force for the defense of life (according to my capability). If they kick in the door, on the other hand, they may well meet with a hail of bullets, because they clearly have more than just theft in mind.

You are confused to suggest that Christian character works as a stand-alone measure of justice. I will state that it is perfectly acceptable for a person to defend their life with lethal force against an attacker. Christian morality is not a free pass for evil men to do whatever they want, or a reversal of Old Testament judgements. Jesus Christ set an example when he died for us (to save us from Buddhism, among other things, BTW), and the lesson is not that we should die, but that God wants all men to be saved. It's important to note that salvation is not a general concept equatable to improving your life, but is specifically a restoration of a relationship with and a dependence on God, a transition to the character of God, and an escape from judgement. I don't think I could say that it would be pleasing to God for me to kill another man to save my life, if I believe in Jesus and what He did for me, but that's not to say that it's inherently wrong to defend my life or the lives of others. Steven, in the Bible asked God to forgive the men who stoned him. I would say it's clear that it is a Christian's prerogative to value God's desire for men's salvation more highly than his life, and in doing so following the example of Christ.

Violence against innocent people is not understandable, no matter how common it may become. It's important to keep this in perspective. Someone who threatens another person's life, unprovoked, hasn't just made a bad decision, they have gone so far down the wrong road that they are in danger of being deserving of DEATH themselves. If everyone was so serious about it, society would be very different, and no one would need to carry a gun...

tunnelcat wrote:vision, If you were a woman and a man broke into your house with God knows what intent, I'm sure you'd rethink that opinion. If I were a man however, I'd be more likely to tackle and beat the crap out of the guy instead of killing him, then let the law deal with him properly afterwards. If that intruder breaks in and is armed, the situation changes drastically. Shoot first and ask questions later.

oh this old chestnut again.

Most people who break into your home just want your TV.