Subject: GUN CONTROL

Give Cabal a break guys, so he's not a fan of guns and hasn't used them recently, theres nothing wrong with that. Choosing less lethal ways to defend your home seems logical if u havn't used a gun in ages.
I know if i had a gun i'd probably shoot the loved one accidently because of lack of experience. If the same thing happened but i was using what cabal was using there'd be less chance that my loved one was killed by me. Guns arn't for everybody.

Different strokes for different blokes people.
 
hmmm, it's basically a modified Tippmann 98C paintball gun running on CO2, so probably in the range of $300 or so. Once you get the setup, you're looking at your highest expense being ammo.

Just in case, I wasn't trying to give anyone a hard time. Sorry if I offended unwittingly.
 
The reason why you don't see that much of these non-lethal weapons around because they have been restricted to several agencies depending on whether the agency itself accepts it. The company that manufactures non-lethal weapons announced that they will soon release this kind of weapon to the public in a few months.

I've sent my letter to show my interests for purchase. They sent me their brochure that suggests the SA10 costs around 250-300 USD.

I was able to get my on hands on other types of launchers in one Showroom in Connecticut but they appear to be too expensive for my tastes.

In terms of self-defense, I think this is the safest way for ordinary citizens to defend themselves.
 
Last edited:
Just me, but I'll stick with the more effective (permanent) methods I'm more familiar with.

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired
Click to expand...
source:

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

Oddly enough, since the law has been on the books, there hasn't been one single child killed, one single gang war, or even a burglar shot. The one shooting involved the wife of a law enforcement official who used his service pistol on him.
 
Italian Guy said:
Well that's right. How much would a pepperball launcher cost and how come is it not that widespread?
Click to expand...

You don't see it and many cops don't recommend it because convicts administer the pepper to themselves. They subject themselves to this crap and build up a resistance so when you shoot them its no more harmful or hurtful than vinegar. I know, I have a cousin who is a habitual felon.

As for my first post and the questions thereof... Its too late for Europe and Europeans to own weapons. Like I said they went down that path already and gave it up, not just physically but mentally as well. Europeans by and large I have talked with at length are resigned to letting "the government handle it" in many many aspects of their lives, protection included. There is a vast cultural rift between the US and Europe.
 
I won't go into the pro's and contra's of owning guns. I am, however, missing one variable in the equation. So far I have read about the killing of burglars who's holding a knife to your loved one. Everybody just expects to shoot the bead guy, instant death and that's it. No one seems to take into account that you might be the one ending the life of your loved one. I personally would buy my time and appease the guy. Does he want my wallet.. fine. He is holding the upper hand. A burglary is something I'll survive easily, killing my wife/ child..... I don't think so!
 
Doesn't matter Ted, in the states the perp will cap you to leave no witnesses. Dead men don't testify.
 
bulldogg said:
Doesn't matter Ted, in the states the perp will cap you to leave no witnesses. Dead men don't testify.
Click to expand...

Pfff, where is the honour of the gentleman burglar... you know, the one that leaves a calling card so everybody knows he dun' it? What are we coming to?
 
Those days went goodbye with mandatory sentences and the three strikes rule as far as I can tell. My cousin was convicted at the age of 12 as the "youngest hitman in the state of California" according to the Oakland Tribune of the day. He was caught when he had a change of heart and brought his victim to the emergency room after beating him half to death with a 2X4 for $1000. The cops asked him what happened and he came clean expecting to receive a lenient sentence in exchange for cooperating. He'd seen too much tv.

He received the maximum sentence owing to the public outrage of the brutallity of it all and rightly so. But to my cousin he felt betrayed and figured he would have gotten the same sentence anyway so... he never made that mistake again. He is the only man I am truly scared of being in the same room with and wouldn't do it without a gun even though he is family and tells me he really "likes" me. And there are thousands like him who would not lose a wink of sleep over killing you and your family simply "because" so if a criminal breaks into your house how do you know if it is someone like him or some "gentleman"? You don't and in my judgement you err on the side of assuming the worst and protecting your family.

You shoot, and you shoot to kill without warning.
 
What is the world coming to? I guess those days have gone permanently. The answer to me is, should the law have been lenient because of what he did? In my opinion it should, but then again I am a softy. But the monster they have created, is so much worse!
 
bulldogg" said:
Its too late for Europe and Europeans to own weapons. Like I said they went down that path already and gave it up, not just physically but mentally as well. Europeans by and large I have talked with at length are resigned to letting "the government handle it" in many many aspects of their lives, protection included. There is a vast cultural rift between the US and Europe.
Click to expand...

You know I was talking about this with my buddy this morning during a walk on the beach with his German Shepard (which is a weapon by himself). We both came to agree that, though like you say the rift between US and Europe is still vast, the idea of self-defense is one of the several aspects of the comeback of the right in Italy. Since 1994 Italy, which had had virtually no conservative parties since the 20's, is witnessing a huge and strong backlash and the idea of a smaller State, of a State that is there to serve the citizens and can't ask the more than what is just is making itself known and popular. More and more as the years pass and elections keep confirming it. Before it would have simply been a taboo talking about owning guns for self-defense. Today it is no more. Even on a philosophical point of view. Yes, true, we're still very far from accepting it as part of our shared Constitutional heritage, but you see, a country's direction is never given once and for all. Peoples change their mind. Do not forget that the left was virtually unrivalled in the US as late as the 70's, when Goldwater and the Reagan started to make the difference. Many things are changing.
 
We recently had a situation in Northern Virginia where a mentally unbalanced 18year old with a criminal record escaped from a mental health facility and carjacked a vehicle. He later turned himself in and was released on bond. A couple weeks later he returned to the local police station with a hunting rifle, and AK47-like assault rifle and five handguns. He ambushed police officers in the parking lot during shift change, killing a detective and critically wounding two others before being taken down.

When police searched his home, that he shared with his parents and sister, they found an additional dozen weapons (shotguns, rifles, pistols and knives) in open sight around the house. There was no statement as to whether the guns were registered or licensed.

My first thought was the dollar value of the weapons. He was carrying around 5K worth of weapons with another 5-7K at home. Now even if the weapons were owned by the family, who would keep that kind of hardware in the same home with a mentally unbalance teenager with a criminal record?

Look, I own guns. My wife and children know how to safely use them although they haven't been fired in several years. I live a mile away from NRA headquarters and shoot at their range. At best a gun is a tool that can be used or abused. But there has to be middle ground that permits ownership but protects the community from this kind of nightmare scenario.
 
bulldogg said:
Those days went goodbye with mandatory sentences and the three strikes rule as far as I can tell. My cousin was convicted at the age of 12 as the "youngest hitman in the state of California" according to the Oakland Tribune of the day. He was caught when he had a change of heart and brought his victim to the emergency room after beating him half to death with a 2X4 for $1000. The cops asked him what happened and he came clean expecting to receive a lenient sentence in exchange for cooperating. He'd seen too much tv.

He received the maximum sentence owing to the public outrage of the brutallity of it all and rightly so. But to my cousin he felt betrayed and figured he would have gotten the same sentence anyway so... he never made that mistake again. He is the only man I am truly scared of being in the same room with and wouldn't do it without a gun even though he is family and tells me he really "likes" me. And there are thousands like him who would not lose a wink of sleep over killing you and your family simply "because" so if a criminal breaks into your house how do you know if it is someone like him or some "gentleman"? You don't and in my judgement you err on the side of assuming the worst and protecting your family.

You shoot, and you shoot to kill without warning.
Click to expand...
But nowadays burglars are suing for injurys, and winning...That pisses me off.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
But nowadays burglars are suing for injurys, and winning...That pisses me off.
Click to expand...

What kind of piss ant weapon are you using? Leave a hole in him a semi could drive through.
 
that's the fault of the courts- you enter my house with intent to harm, let me put it this way:

If it starts out as a civil disagreement, I will use anything in reach to break the first appendage that touches me. It does not matter that I weigh fifty pounds less than you, I will bludgeon you with a tire iron if need be. Do not trifle with me when you tread upon my own property. To me, anything that can be used as protection in a violent situation falls under the second amendment. That's probably a little right wing even for this forum. I am protected by my right to self defense. This is assuming that this happens on my property.

If it's a hostile engagement, then this confrontation is fixing to go terribly wrong for you.

When the lives of their friends or family are on the line, most normal men will not care about pending legal damages at the time things go wrong. Gun control is having a good sight picture. This would, sensibly, also fall under self defense granted it was in defense of my property and life.

The problem is that anyone sues over any little thing these days, and these frivolous cases end up clogging the courts. Hell, we almost lost Tim McVeigh because of incompetency of the courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top