**Bloodlust**READ THIS THREAD BEFORE POSTING IN THIS SUBFORUM!
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
I know this thread had somewhat died down and I'm sorry for resurrecting it. Being a Texan I have to admit to feeling somewhat picked on. I seriously don't think we're a bunch of yahoos out to blow away anyone who even approaches our property at night. The reports of incidences over the years shows that.
Personally, if some drunk comes banging on my door in the middle of the night, I'm not about to shoot him. He might not get a polite reply if I answer at all, though mostly likely I'd just call the cops and go back to bed. My friends and family know not to drop by unannounced.
As for property vs. life. I'm not going to bust out and shoot a thief, but I'm also not about to send him on his way to potentially victimize someone else, perhaps violently this time. Again, that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot him on sight. I will do whatever needs done to make sure that he doesn't get away till the law can take him though. I think a responsible person would not want to send a criminal to his neighbors. If saying that gets me banned, then so be it.
I think the new rules here stifle open conversation and opinion. THR has always been pretty self policing when it comes to the "blow them away" yahoos. Can't we just keep it like that without the restrictive censorship policies? I mean it's pretty easy to tell a troll from a serious post from a misguided "armchair commando".
Personally, if some drunk comes banging on my door in the middle of the night, I'm not about to shoot him. He might not get a polite reply if I answer at all, though mostly likely I'd just call the cops and go back to bed. My friends and family know not to drop by unannounced.
As for property vs. life. I'm not going to bust out and shoot a thief, but I'm also not about to send him on his way to potentially victimize someone else, perhaps violently this time. Again, that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot him on sight. I will do whatever needs done to make sure that he doesn't get away till the law can take him though. I think a responsible person would not want to send a criminal to his neighbors. If saying that gets me banned, then so be it.
I think the new rules here stifle open conversation and opinion. THR has always been pretty self policing when it comes to the "blow them away" yahoos. Can't we just keep it like that without the restrictive censorship policies? I mean it's pretty easy to tell a troll from a serious post from a misguided "armchair commando".
bcochran
Member
Good post Jeff. Next, no more "when can I shoot someone", .45 government model vs. Glock, .45acp vs. 9mm threads!
Perspective from Florida
Reasonable people knock on doors and await permission before entering other people's residences. And they almost never enter through windows.
I am of the firm belief that if someone forcibly enters someone else's residence, he (or she) almost certainly has some plan for dealing with the occupant(s). It is only reasonable to assume that the plan involves violence.
Fortunately, the legislature of the State of Florida agrees with this assessment and has passed a statute to the effect that, if someone forcibly enters a residence, the resident may presume that the intruder is armed and presents a clear and present danger.
The lesson to be learned here? If you are in Florida and your car breaks down in the middle of the night, do what a reasonable person would do: knock on a door; if no one answers, do not proceed to force your way into the residence beyond....
As long as you act reasonably, it is fairly safe to assume that, law or no law, most Florida residents will also act reasonably. We seem to be handling the whole concealed carry / expanded castle doctrine / stand your ground trilogy of innovations pretty well so far....
In any case, it's your forum, you can set any rules you like. I will bear them in mind and, considering the permissive nature of my state's rules, generally tend toward silence rather than participation that might be misconstrued as "bloodthirsty."
Have a nice day ;^)
Reasonable people knock on doors and await permission before entering other people's residences. And they almost never enter through windows.
I am of the firm belief that if someone forcibly enters someone else's residence, he (or she) almost certainly has some plan for dealing with the occupant(s). It is only reasonable to assume that the plan involves violence.
Fortunately, the legislature of the State of Florida agrees with this assessment and has passed a statute to the effect that, if someone forcibly enters a residence, the resident may presume that the intruder is armed and presents a clear and present danger.
The lesson to be learned here? If you are in Florida and your car breaks down in the middle of the night, do what a reasonable person would do: knock on a door; if no one answers, do not proceed to force your way into the residence beyond....
As long as you act reasonably, it is fairly safe to assume that, law or no law, most Florida residents will also act reasonably. We seem to be handling the whole concealed carry / expanded castle doctrine / stand your ground trilogy of innovations pretty well so far....
In any case, it's your forum, you can set any rules you like. I will bear them in mind and, considering the permissive nature of my state's rules, generally tend toward silence rather than participation that might be misconstrued as "bloodthirsty."
Have a nice day ;^)
No offense intended, but that's circular logic.
We can't "advocate" the use of deadly force if it is "not warranted," which might make it rather difficult to discuss it to determine whether or not it is "warranted" in the first place.
Given the wide variety of laws we all live under and the wide variety of opinions we have regarding what our rights and laws should be, I suppose the current rule of "lowest common denominator" is reasonable. I guess only time will tell....
Edit: Removed an extraneous "But" and added a missing "not" ;^)
Last edited:
USN Gunner SW
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Messages
- 4
O-C-I
Well, as a new member, I'd like to say hello to everyone and introduce myself. My name is josh, I'm a Gunner's Mate in the US Navy and i've been in about a year. And i'm probably gonna be a lifer.
Well, back to this thread. After reading and skimming through this thread, i've come to the conclusion that this is a debate over when and when not you can use deadly force. Now being in the military i'm gonna offer the KISS, or Keep It Simple Stupid, method of when deadly force is authorized. In the Navy we teach that in order to use deadly force that the person has to have 3 things known as O-C-I in order for you to use deadly force on them. Those 3 things are Opportunity, Capability, and Intent, which means he/she has to have a deadly weapon such as a gun or a knife for example which gives him/her the capability, have the opportunity to use the weapon in a leathal means, and then have the intent to use the weapon, example being drawing the gun or knife in a hostile manner. And another rule is that you never draw your weapon unless you intend to use it, and when you do, you shoot to disable aiming center mass, being the torso.
Now i believe there was also some talk about if someone was stealing something and that taking hours of your life or something like that, well first off, thats what property insurance is for, to cover for objects that might get damaged or stolen. That does not give you the right to shoot someone regardless of how hard you worked to get it. A $200,000 car is not worth a persons life, especially if he had no intent on physically harming anyone, not to mention the possible lack of O-C-I. Thats a one way to get yourself thrown in prison, and possibly for 10-30 years.
That is all.
Well, as a new member, I'd like to say hello to everyone and introduce myself. My name is josh, I'm a Gunner's Mate in the US Navy and i've been in about a year. And i'm probably gonna be a lifer.
Well, back to this thread. After reading and skimming through this thread, i've come to the conclusion that this is a debate over when and when not you can use deadly force. Now being in the military i'm gonna offer the KISS, or Keep It Simple Stupid, method of when deadly force is authorized. In the Navy we teach that in order to use deadly force that the person has to have 3 things known as O-C-I in order for you to use deadly force on them. Those 3 things are Opportunity, Capability, and Intent, which means he/she has to have a deadly weapon such as a gun or a knife for example which gives him/her the capability, have the opportunity to use the weapon in a leathal means, and then have the intent to use the weapon, example being drawing the gun or knife in a hostile manner. And another rule is that you never draw your weapon unless you intend to use it, and when you do, you shoot to disable aiming center mass, being the torso.
Now i believe there was also some talk about if someone was stealing something and that taking hours of your life or something like that, well first off, thats what property insurance is for, to cover for objects that might get damaged or stolen. That does not give you the right to shoot someone regardless of how hard you worked to get it. A $200,000 car is not worth a persons life, especially if he had no intent on physically harming anyone, not to mention the possible lack of O-C-I. Thats a one way to get yourself thrown in prison, and possibly for 10-30 years.
That is all.
I stopped posting on these forums quite some time ago, mainly because of posts in which certain site members seemed to advocate the violent overthrow of the government of the USA.
I came back now and again to view the site. It seemed to have changed some, tempered some, and that seemed good.
Tonight, I was just about ready to once again become a regular contributing member, then I read most of this thread. While I think the intent behind the limitations/restrictions mentioned by the site administrator(s) is one of decent intent, I have to question the methods being used to achieve the end. I agree that all the super-macho, gun-nut, GunKid, kind of BS about how you should blast first and ask questions later is immature, and quire possibly bad for responsible gun owners and those who would defend themselves from bad guys. Yet, I strongly disagree with the restriction that prevents a site user from posting something to the effect that he or she would shoot an intruder who illegally entered or attempted to enter his or her home, when it is legal to do so to protect both life, limb and property. This method was exactly the same method used by the leftists who wanted to take away our guns and our ability to defend ourselves with them in the first place. Maybe you are not old enough to remember, but I am that old. Yes it used to be legal in more states than currently, to shoot an intruder in your home, and you had no duty to retreat first. The intruder was there, you could shoot. The ownership of guns was not chipped away first; it was the ability to legally shoot an intruder simply for intruding that was chipped away at first. Then after that was gone in most states, handguns came next. Then evil assault weapons.
So what could be the effect of responsible gun owners and responsible self and property defense advocates who say - oh no you cannot talk about that here even if legal. The effect can be that those who tried for so many years to restrict our rights will point to this site as an example of how even the gun owning public agrees with they who would disarm us and destroy our rights to defense of self and property. That would be a shame, a crying shame, no matter how well intentioned you are being in, what I believe to be, your shortsightedness, and narrowmindedness.
If someone wants to discuss their legal tactical self defense and propert options, then if you truly are an advocate of the second amendment, and of a person's right to self defense and defense of property - you would allow those discussions in a civil manner. If you don't allow such discussions, as I see it, you are little more than someone who is trying to restict my rights. No not any imagined right of posting on your site, I know that is a privilege not a right because the site is your property, but rather by your agreement with those who want to take away my rights you have in essence become one of them by lending them and their argument support. A shame indeed.
Best regards,
Glenn B
I came back now and again to view the site. It seemed to have changed some, tempered some, and that seemed good.
Tonight, I was just about ready to once again become a regular contributing member, then I read most of this thread. While I think the intent behind the limitations/restrictions mentioned by the site administrator(s) is one of decent intent, I have to question the methods being used to achieve the end. I agree that all the super-macho, gun-nut, GunKid, kind of BS about how you should blast first and ask questions later is immature, and quire possibly bad for responsible gun owners and those who would defend themselves from bad guys. Yet, I strongly disagree with the restriction that prevents a site user from posting something to the effect that he or she would shoot an intruder who illegally entered or attempted to enter his or her home, when it is legal to do so to protect both life, limb and property. This method was exactly the same method used by the leftists who wanted to take away our guns and our ability to defend ourselves with them in the first place. Maybe you are not old enough to remember, but I am that old. Yes it used to be legal in more states than currently, to shoot an intruder in your home, and you had no duty to retreat first. The intruder was there, you could shoot. The ownership of guns was not chipped away first; it was the ability to legally shoot an intruder simply for intruding that was chipped away at first. Then after that was gone in most states, handguns came next. Then evil assault weapons.
So what could be the effect of responsible gun owners and responsible self and property defense advocates who say - oh no you cannot talk about that here even if legal. The effect can be that those who tried for so many years to restrict our rights will point to this site as an example of how even the gun owning public agrees with they who would disarm us and destroy our rights to defense of self and property. That would be a shame, a crying shame, no matter how well intentioned you are being in, what I believe to be, your shortsightedness, and narrowmindedness.
If someone wants to discuss their legal tactical self defense and propert options, then if you truly are an advocate of the second amendment, and of a person's right to self defense and defense of property - you would allow those discussions in a civil manner. If you don't allow such discussions, as I see it, you are little more than someone who is trying to restict my rights. No not any imagined right of posting on your site, I know that is a privilege not a right because the site is your property, but rather by your agreement with those who want to take away my rights you have in essence become one of them by lending them and their argument support. A shame indeed.
Best regards,
Glenn B
grampster
Member
I don't believe Oleg or any of the moderators intended anything in the nature of the downside of your remarks, Glenn. I believe the intent was to be inclined toward the positive nature of your remarks.
This is a place to responsibly discuss tactics and behaviour that protect oneself, loved ones, and perhaps others, from harm in bad situations. One hopes no one is confronted with that choice or decision.
This is an open forum and the way we think of ourselves and more appropriately, how those who are on the fence or actually opposed to us, do think of us, depends on the quality and level of the discussion.
Reasonable discussion about lawful response, knowing that violence should only be a last resort, taken by those who are familiar not only with their rights, but with tactics and firearm use should rule the conversation. I don't believe in any way that the intent of the comments in this sticky is other than think twice, post once. Inflamatory comments do no one any good.
Welcome back Glenn and I hope to read your offerings on a more regular basis in the future.
This is a place to responsibly discuss tactics and behaviour that protect oneself, loved ones, and perhaps others, from harm in bad situations. One hopes no one is confronted with that choice or decision.
This is an open forum and the way we think of ourselves and more appropriately, how those who are on the fence or actually opposed to us, do think of us, depends on the quality and level of the discussion.
Reasonable discussion about lawful response, knowing that violence should only be a last resort, taken by those who are familiar not only with their rights, but with tactics and firearm use should rule the conversation. I don't believe in any way that the intent of the comments in this sticky is other than think twice, post once. Inflamatory comments do no one any good.
Welcome back Glenn and I hope to read your offerings on a more regular basis in the future.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Both sides of the issue are pretty clear, and I commend the idea that "bloodthirsty" posts don't help our PR and should be edited or perhaps removed.
However, and I hate to say it, Mr. White's original post sounded rather too authoritarian for my personal tastes.
At this point the advantages of the stated policy seem to outweigh the disadvantages.
So I guess it's OK, as long as the moderator stays moderate --but of course that's the hardest part of being a moderator.
However, and I hate to say it, Mr. White's original post sounded rather too authoritarian for my personal tastes.
At this point the advantages of the stated policy seem to outweigh the disadvantages.
So I guess it's OK, as long as the moderator stays moderate --but of course that's the hardest part of being a moderator.
As a member of various forums for the last few years I
have enjoyed the information,experience and opinions
shared by many.
Coversely,flame war pissing matches and hillbilly redneck tactical
chest puffing impresses me as about as much as jihad rhetoric.
This site is the most intelligent and thoughtful forum I have
encountered.
Thank you all for the level of discourse here.
I am also greatful for spell check so I don't sound like a moron!
have enjoyed the information,experience and opinions
shared by many.
Coversely,flame war pissing matches and hillbilly redneck tactical
chest puffing impresses me as about as much as jihad rhetoric.
This site is the most intelligent and thoughtful forum I have
encountered.
Thank you all for the level of discourse here.
I am also greatful for spell check so I don't sound like a moron!
Paper Cutter
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 9
Seems to me there is an issue...then a matter by which one chooses to discuss that issue.
Jeff has not limited the issues. He simply said we should take the high road in the manner in which we discuss those issues.
If you believe this not to be the case, reread all the previous postings. You may note, some of the nastiest issues on this forum are present right here in this thread, in quotes and theory. These posts are still readable because the issues are not banned. He's just saying that a level of professionalism needs to be enacted when discussing sensitive topics.
Those people who enjoy public, base-level rants are putting the bow on arguments for the anti-gun movement, and then handing it over on a silver platter.
Jeff, thank you for your level of diplomacy throughout this thread.
And for those opposed to Jeff's views, I understand what you're saying when I read ideas in full context. But, unfortunately, the media never presents anything in full context. And, they're the forces that rally the masses.
With the exception of one, every gun I own, I inherited. With any luck, the few I do own will be left to the next generation.
So, if you really enjoy being a gun owner, no matter what forum you're in, just try to think about how the media can skew your words and turn them back on you.
Jeff has not limited the issues. He simply said we should take the high road in the manner in which we discuss those issues.
If you believe this not to be the case, reread all the previous postings. You may note, some of the nastiest issues on this forum are present right here in this thread, in quotes and theory. These posts are still readable because the issues are not banned. He's just saying that a level of professionalism needs to be enacted when discussing sensitive topics.
Those people who enjoy public, base-level rants are putting the bow on arguments for the anti-gun movement, and then handing it over on a silver platter.
Jeff, thank you for your level of diplomacy throughout this thread.
And for those opposed to Jeff's views, I understand what you're saying when I read ideas in full context. But, unfortunately, the media never presents anything in full context. And, they're the forces that rally the masses.
With the exception of one, every gun I own, I inherited. With any luck, the few I do own will be left to the next generation.
So, if you really enjoy being a gun owner, no matter what forum you're in, just try to think about how the media can skew your words and turn them back on you.
grampster
Member
Er..ahh...cough, ahem...Gaucho, you misspelled grateful. 
I'm sorry, that was just too good to pass up.
I'm sorry, that was just too good to pass up.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
Glen Bartley, excelent post . You pretty much summed up my thoughts.
. You pretty much summed up my thoughts.30 cal slob
Member
If a bandit is making out with your firearms collection, and it is reasonable to assume that the criminal misappropriation of your firearms will cause grave bodily injury or death to other innocents and the public at large, then I think this is one narrow case where you could morally justify using deadly force to prevent the theft of property. Of course, the letter of the law supersedes this.
As an NFA collector, I believe I have a duty to prevent these items from going into the wrong hands.
Otherwise, I'm pretty much on board with the don't-shoot-for-property thing. Hell, that's what insurance is for.
XavierBreath
Member
I'm closing this thread. If you have any questions, it's best to begin a new thread rather than have your valid questions hidden in a six month old stickied thread where they will never be answered.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
