An Alternative to Guns

[Dagenais]

Those who use firearms as a self-defense tool for their house, car or store should really consider one of these (http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/1132/sesent/00) instead.

It's a safe, less barbaric and cheaper way to defend yourself. Plus, it'll get you in less trouble with the law (for blasting someone with bullets) and less guilt.

I think that those devices further push the point that guns are unnecessary outside of the police/FBI or military.

And for the majority of the people who buy guns and claim they're for hunting - no you didn't.

:rolleyes:

[iansmith]

Am I the only to think that the E2D Executive Defender look like a lightsaber?

I think I watch Star Wars too many time and know too much about the details.

[chroot]

The problem is that a would-be attacker is likely carrying a more dangerous weapon than a flashlight with delusions of grandeur.

- Warren

[dduardo]

At first glance I thought it was one of those shoulder surface to air heat seeking missile rocket launchers, but on closer inspection it was just a really bright flashlight.

[Adam]

1) Common safety recommendations for guns in the house include having the weapon unloaded and locked away, with the bullets in a separate location. Thus it is useless for defence, unless you plan to ask the intruder to wait while you go prepare your weapon.

2) Ignoring 1 and having a loaded, quickly accessible gun is what leads to Junior the one-year-old shooting Dad in the face with the shotgun.

3) People who have guns in the home "for defence" tend to shoot their own kids coming home late at night.

4) The torch is just going to annoy the intruder.

5) Buy some geese, they're harder to disarm than electronic systems.

[BoulderHead]

I plan to give intruders a good tanning they won't soon forget;
http://www.ccrane.com/3_million_spotlight.asp

Of course, for more serious home defense I prefer something like this;
http://www.skylighters.org/photos/slimages/listen.html

[Eh]

Shining a bright light in an attackers face will not prevent him from firing at you. So get a real weapon, or hope the attacker will be merciful.

As for this:

And for the majority of the people who buy guns and claim they're for hunting - no you didn't.
Except for the many gun owners who do buy guns and use them exclusively for hunting. :uhh:

[Dagenais]

Am I the only to think that the E2D Executive Defender look like a lightsaber?



It does. It would look even closer if it was silver coloured.

Shining a bright light in an attackers face will not prevent him from firing at you. So get a real weapon, or hope the attacker will be merciful.



If it blinds them, it'll make a huge difference.

Surefire claims that the CIA, Law enforcement use it.

[Moonbear]

3) People who have guns in the home "for defence" tend to shoot their own kids coming home late at night.


And well they deserve it, those little rapscallions! :wink:

Seriously, while I don't advocate guns for "self-defense" because they either aren't where you need them when you need them, or they get into the hands of the toddler, I also don't think shining a bright light in someone's face is going to deter them from shooting you, just hinder their aim a bit...they'll still be aiming into the bright light!

Then again, I had a rather crazy grandfather who got tired of their house getting robbed every year (my grandparents would spend the winters in Florida and their summer house would always get robbed while they were away for such a long time), so left the blinds open on the windows and a clear view of the rifles rigged up with strings between the doors and triggers. He left one entrance unrigged so my dad could get in and water the plants. Needless to say, Dad removed all the rifles (none were loaded) and put them away so nobody would steal the rifles. The following year, my grandmother took a more sane approach...she left notes in every drawer in the house for the robbers, telling them not to bother because everything of value had already been stolen or taken with them. It worked! The house was broken into, but nothing taken, and the cops were just rolling with laughter when they found just one dresser drawer open and the note sitting on top.

[BoulderHead]

Surefire claims that the CIA, Law enforcement use it.
Yes, but it seems not as a replacement for firearms;

http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/pgrfnbr/32/sesent/00

[recon]

Has anyone watched Hitchcock's Rear Window? Jeffries got away from the bad guy by flashing a bright light (I think it was the camera flash) into his eyes. If it works in the movies, I don't think it is going to work in real life. ;)

[Dagenais]

The flashlight was built to temporarily blind someone. It's not a camera, or an everyday flash-light.

[Eh]

Reminds me of a similar thread about non lethal weapons, ie. stun devices. Nice idea, but today there is really no such weapon that even comes close to being a match for a gun. Hey, maybe if the "bad guys" didn't have guns, blinding lights, stuns guns and pepper spray would be much more useful.

[franznietzsche]

While i think the 3 million candlepower bulb might work, that little glorified flashlight doesn't make me feel real safe. I prefer the spartan solution:

1. You broke into my home, and are thus implicitly threatening the safety of myself and my family. Your life is forfeit, their lives are more important than yours or mine.

2. I pump the 12 gauge.

3. You've got to the count of 3 to be on the ground, or i assume you have deadly intent and means. You get 1 verbal warning, and a verbal count.

4. If you have not complied, you're dead.

[chroot]

franz,

You should never pull a gun on a person unless you have an intent to use it immediately. Ideally, the person you're shooting should not realize you're armed until you've fired. Any kind of "warning" is just putting yourself in enormous danger.

- Warren

[franznietzsche]

franz,

You should never pull a gun on a person unless you have an intent to use it immediately. Ideally, the person you're shooting should not realize you're armed until you've fired. Any kind of "warning" is just putting yourself in enormous danger.

- Warren


Indeed, although the general idea of alerting them to the pumping of a twelve gauge is to scare them into submission. Mind you, i'd prefer not shoot the person unnecessarily. More than willing to use it if necessary, but would prefer not to. Also, from the time the gun is loaded i will fire if i see any action that could be interpreted as even potentially hostile.

And as for the person who posted the link to that flashlight originally i really hope you are never responsible for the safety or protection of any other human being in any circumstance.

[Dagenais]

And as for the person who posted the link to that flashlight originally i really hope you are never responsible for the safety or protection of any other human being in any circumstance.

The purpose of the Flashlight is home self-defense.

I'm sorry if I choose not to put bullets into other people.

If you want to shoot someone, join the war. Guns shouldn't be in civilian hands.

[chroot]

By the time you've finished pumping your 12 gauge, any well-prepared attacker will already have killed you. Trust me, you're not going to scare an attacker into submission; you're going to provoke them into killing you as fast as possible.

- Warren

[franznietzsche]

The purpose of the Flashlight is home self-defense.


The purpose of the flashlight is to keep oneself from tripping in the dark.

Someone coming in specifically to kill, then yes that risk becomes obvious. Some idiot coming in looking for stereos however is not a well-prepared attacker. However this may be my suburban bias, where the worst personal crime i seriously have to worry about are idiot teenagers too high to find their own hands with Dagenais's flashlight. And they live right next door unfortunately.

[Dagenais]

Trust me, you're not going to scare an attacker into submission; you're going to provoke them into killing you as fast as possible.



Just wondering...how do you know all of this? :confused:

But yeah, if a robber has the intent to kill you, he's not going to be intimidated. Just more reason to shoot first.


The purpose of the flashlight is to keep oneself from tripping in the dark.



Different type of flashlight. It was mentioned in the link and in this thread. Not that hard to get.

Someone coming in specifically to kill, then yes that risk becomes obvious. Some idiot coming in looking for stereos however is not a well-prepared attacker. However this may be my suburban bias, where the worst personal crime i seriously have to worry about are idiot teenagers too high to find their own hands with Dagenais's flashlight. And they live right next door unfortunately.

I don't use that flashlight. I use the police officers living next to me, and across from me.

Your shot-gun is necessary to subdue 'high' teenagers?

According to you, you'll warn them before shooting. However, you claim that they can't even find their own hands since they are "out of their mind."

You say if they aren't on the floor, following your instructions - you'll shoot.

I guess a couple of teenagers just lost their lives. Congratulations, you have just killed your adolescent neighbor!

Quoted from a popular movie, "Guns take you to a place you don't want to go."

1. Jail
2. Court
3. War

[chroot]

Dag,

While in general I agree with you that guns are unnecessary to solve 99% of all problems in the world, people still have the right to have them if they choose to -- even in Canada. You make your choices, and let others make theirs.

- Warren

[chroot]

By the way, I must say that, in my opinion, the best action to take when someone mugs you or breaks into your house is simply to give them the crap they want. If you're smart, you have insurance on your house, car, and belongings anyway, so there's just really no reason at all to fight for material possessions. IMO, just let them have the junk, let them leave peacefully, and call the police later.

- Warren

[jimmy p]

If you shine the E2D in the sky, will Batman come to the rescue?

[aeroegnr]

You are a thief.

Given two choices, you could rob a house whose owner has a gun, or a house whose owner has a high powered "blinding" flashlight.

Who would you choose to rob?

You are a sexual predator. You stalk women in attempt to rape them. You see the butt end of a gun in the purse of one of your potential targets. Do you still pursue them?

You catch someone in the process of stealing your car. Do you:

A- ignore them, then call the cops later to report stolen property
B- call the cops while letting them get away
C- tell them to freeze and point your gun at them, while getting attention of someone to call the police

Cops can only prevent crimes that they are there to witness or take action against. I think the first line of defense for any person's property should be themselves. After all, I also believe that a person should first be responsible for their own lives and property before they ask for someone else's help.

Would you leave all the locks on your property unlocked? Why leave yourself unprotected?

[DarkAnt]

Who needs those wimpy flashlights? Get a box full of flashbangs and throw it at them =)

[Eh]

By the time you've finished pumping your 12 gauge, any well-prepared attacker will already have killed you. Trust me, you're not going to scare an attacker into submission; you're going to provoke them into killing you as fast as possible.
Depends if the potential attacker has seen you. In that case, I'd have to agree that you don't point a gun unless you're planning to use it. However, if the sound of a shotgun being pumped is heard in the background, odds are the intruder will be running out the door. If I'm about to commit a home invasion, I'll quickly change my mind if I know I'll be going up against someone with a shotgun. Unlike handguns, you don't need to be very accurate and a shotgun assault is almost certain to be fatal.

[franznietzsche]

Depends if the potential attacker has seen you. In that case, I'd have to agree that you don't point a gun unless you're planning to use it. However, if the sound of a shotgun being pumped is heard in the background, odds are the intruder will be running out the door. If I'm about to commit a home invasion, I'll quickly change my mind if I know I'll be going up against someone with a shotgun. Unlike handguns, you don't need to be very accurate and a shotgun assault is almost certain to be fatal.

Yes the general idea is to catch them unawares to the fact that you are even awake.

[Njorl]

Has anyone watched Hitchcock's Rear Window? Jeffries got away from the bad guy by flashing a bright light (I think it was the camera flash) into his eyes. If it works in the movies, I don't think it is going to work in real life. ;)

As I recall, the bad guy threw Jimmy Stewart out of the window after the "flashing". So, if it didn't work in the movie, does that mean it works in real life?

I think you'd need something that either blinded people through their eyelids, which is not practical, or blinded them before their blink reflex kicked in. Since the thing probably works in a pulsed mode, if you catch them in the middle of a natural blink, you're outta luck.

Njorl

[Njorl]

Depends if the potential attacker has seen you. In that case, I'd have to agree that you don't point a gun unless you're planning to use it. However, if the sound of a shotgun being pumped is heard in the background, odds are the intruder will be running out the door. If I'm about to commit a home invasion, I'll quickly change my mind if I know I'll be going up against someone with a shotgun. Unlike handguns, you don't need to be very accurate and a shotgun assault is almost certain to be fatal.


Hmm

Maybe I'll make a home security system that incorporates shotgun pumping noises into it. You could also do growling Rottweilers, or, a chainsaw pull-starting in the distance for that "Leatherface" ambiance.

Njorl

[Eh]

Nope, just the shotgun sound. An armed attacker isn't likely to be afraid of a chainsaw or dog.

[The Bob]

Locks, spikes on the roof, slow-drying paint. All things that stop theives. A shotgun sound would be good and trip wires or the alarm system I have, which goes off when a door anywhere in the house is forced open. Quality.

The Bob (2004 ©)

[franznietzsche]

Different type of flashlight. It was mentioned in the link and in this thread. Not that hard to get.



Have you ever heard the words: satire, sarcasm, a flashlight is not going to stop him from shooting its only going to tell him where to shoot.

Not that hard to get.

[franznietzsche]

Locks, spikes on the roof, slow-drying paint. All things that stop theives. A shotgun sound would be good and trip wires or the alarm system I have, which goes off when a door anywhere in the house is forced open. Quality.

The Bob (2004 ©)

Slow-drying paint? I get the purpose of the rest, but i don't get how that one is a deterrent.

[Dagenais]

Given two choices, you could rob a house whose owner has a gun, or a house whose owner has a high powered "blinding" flashlight.

Who would you choose to rob?



The guy with the gun. I'd go in unarmed then when I get shot, I can sue him and win money (It's happened). I would also be young, so the Judge is bound to feel sorrow, as a man trying to steal a car, who had his hand broken in the process won thousands of dollars.

A- ignore them, then call the cops later to report stolen property
B- call the cops while letting them get away
C- tell them to freeze and point your gun at them, while getting attention of someone to call the police



That's an easy choice.

A

I'd get a damn good look at them.

Why the hell would I choose C? How the hell do I know they won't shoot back? How the hell would I know they don't have someone else behind me looking out ready to blast away?

Why would I even be carrying a gun in a public parking lot? I'm not in East L.A., and if I was, I'd definitely be shot first.

f I'm about to commit a home invasion

If you're going to commit a home invasion, you're ready to take that chance.

A robber isn't going to just "run out the door." He'll probably shoot back, and catch you first. They're armed for a reason, and they do this for a living. You don't do this for a living, and you're nervious.

You simply use the gun on targets once in a while (they don't shoot back) and you're shaking in fear once it's aimed at a human who'll potentially shoot back. Nothing you've experienced before, something they have.

He'll catch you first, then while you're lying in your own pool of blood you'll think, "Why didn't I just hide and let him take my DVD player and laptops?"

You are a sexual predator. You stalk women in attempt to rape them. You see the butt end of a gun in the purse of one of your potential targets. Do you still pursue them?



By the time you would have found her gun and disabled the safety, it would be too late for her. Unless he's running towards you screaming to you his plans, forget about it, won't work.

Quick hand-to-hand self-defense would work a lot better on a sexual assaulter.

Have you ever heard the words: satire, sarcasm, a flashlight is not going to stop him from shooting its only going to tell him where to shoot.



Your sarcasm only showed that you took a look at the picture of the flashlight, and assumed didn't bother to read the descriptions.

Obviously, you didn't get the concept of "different flashlights", since the sarcasm was hardly amusing.

Now, how are your dead Teenage neighbors doing? Well?

[Eh]

The guy with the gun. I'd go in unarmed then when I get shot, I can sue him and win money (It's happened). I would also be young, so the Judge is bound to feel sorrow, as a man trying to steal a car, who had his hand broken in the process won thousands of dollars.
You've got to be kidding. If you get hit with a shotgun blast, you're dead, period. Even if you survive, the chances of you having grounds to sue are slim to none. No sane criminal would be intimated by a silly light or likely willing to get shot in hopes of getting a lawsuit.
If you're going to commit a home invasion, you're ready to take that chance.
Sure you're taking a risk. It's a risky chance you'd have to take. But if a criminal knows for sure he'll meet up with someone with a shotgun, he's a lot less like to take the chance. It's just common sense.
A robber isn't going to just "run out the door." He'll probably shoot back, and catch you first.
If he see's you, sure. That's why I said don't point a gun unless you're going to shoot. However, knowing for certain that a defender with a shotgun is present - is a deterrent likely to cause a criminal to flee.
They're armed for a reason, and they do this for a living. You don't do this for a living, and you're nervious.
It doesn't matter because it takes no skill to fire a shotgun. Accuracy is a non issue. A criminal knows that an encounter with an individual armed with such is probably going to be fatal. And that's really the point. No self defense weapon compares to a shotgun, because anyone can use one with deadly results.
He'll catch you first, then while you're lying in your own pool of blood you'll think, "Why didn't I just hide and let him take my DVD player and laptops?"
Wait a minute here, you're not being consistent. Are you arguing that no weapons should be used in self defense at all? If that's your position, why are you saying that silly light is should be used at all? Either you're against defending yourself at all, or you're for it. If you're for it, the debate is over what weapons would be effective. As we've demonstrated, a light is laughable to criminals and no match for a shotgun.

If you want to argue no defense at all is better, well that's another story. We'll just ignore statistics that show victim cooperation does not always prevent violence.

[Eh]

On a side note, it seems a lot of countries want nothing to do with non lethal weapons such as this. For all the talk of reducing gun violence, governments do not seem to want private citizens to own any non lethal self defense weapons. Stun guns, tasers and pepper spray have been banned in many places. In Canada, I believe lazer pointers have already been banned, meaning this new toy would already be on the blacklist.

[aeroegnr]

I can't take you seriously when you say that you will go into a house of someone who you know has a gun, and have him shoot you just so you can sue him.

If you break into someone's house (meaning, don't just waltz in but take part in forceful entry) and they feel threatened, they have a perfectly good reason to shoot first and ask questions later.

Putting yourself in the way of death just to sue someone seems too sarcastic and mocking of our court system. Sure, there are some cases of that happening, but I have seen many more articles on shop owners (particularly gas station vendors), or home owners, shooting and killing would-be armed thieves. That's one less thief in the gene pool to litigate against. That's also one less thief to house and provide a lawyer for when they get locked up for several years and then get put back out onto the streets.

As for the rape victim, if she has a glock or doesn't use a safety, or even practices gun use, it's over for the assailant.

Tell me hand to hand defense works well when a 120 pound woman who was raped by a 200+ pound hardened attacker. Give a victim a chance to defend themselves and they will. They won't have that chance in all cases, but why not minimize the chances against them?

If you really want to defend your country from an invasion, wouldn't you want all your citizens to be armed free of charge (by tax money)? Or would you want a populace that is defenseless to invasion, and is entirely reliant on the ability and control of a statist government? Do you want citizens to be at the mercy of their government when it comes to whether or not they can defend themselves?

As far as accidental death goes, more people are killed in automobile accidents than by accidental gun deaths. And reducing guns does not necessarily reduce crime. Look at England. It is illegal to own a gun there. Look at the crime rate. Any criminal with a gun knows that every law abiding citizen doesn't have one.

[Dagenais]

You've got to be kidding. If you get hit with a shotgun blast, you're dead, period.

It depends on where you get shot. Stop making idiotic assumptions. If you get shot in the leg, you'll be wounded badly but you won't die. You'll much more likely die from a head shot from a small handgun.


Also, you're changing your question. You didn't say anything about a shotgun, you simply stated a gun. Nothing about shotguns.


Sure you're taking a risk. It's a risky chance you'd have to take. But if a criminal knows for sure he'll meet up with someone with a shotgun, he's a lot less like to take the chance. It's just common sense.

More reason to kill you first. Then loot your house. Is the criminal going to wait for you to get out of bed so you can fetch a shotgun, and you can have a good old shootout?

An intelligent criminal would more likely just sneak into your house and take your stuff. An experienced robber is bound to be more stealthy than you as you come stomping down the stairs making 'intimidating' sounds with your shotgun.

He'll probably thank you for the warning, then shoot you.

And that's really the point. No self defense weapon compares to a shotgun, because anyone can use one with deadly results.

Including your kids, neighbor, nephew or even wife.

You may feel safe but you're a danger to everyone else, and the gun at the same time is a danger to you.

You seem to believe that your gun will make your house a safer place, and robbers will always avoid your house because they somehow know, you have a gun in there. You're so paranoid, you even believe that they'll let you find your gun, and let you shoot them.


Hope this doesn't happen to you. (http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_062904WAKsnohomishmurderSW.2ac185ba2.html)

As we've demonstrated, a light is laughable to criminals and no match for a shotgun.



You haven't demonstrated that, unless you own that special flash light, and have aimed it at yourself. The other person who mentioned that didn't even read the descriptions.


Obviously, you don't get the different types of light and the different types of power. Is the light from the sun silly? How about the blinding light from those small laser pens? Natural light can be dangerous,

You're on a physics forum, time to stop making dumb comments about light, electromagnetic radiation, and rays. Light can be used for many purposed and is hardly "silly" like you claim.

You've demonstrated nothing aside from the fact that you like Shotguns because they may or may not help you when your house gets robbed.

If you want to argue no defense at all is better, well that's another story. We'll just ignore statistics that show victim cooperation does not always prevent violence.


Gun use, never promotes piece. Gun owners should be the last ones talking about preventing violence.

http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/stupid.html

[chroot]

I can't take you seriously when you say that you will go into a house of someone who you know has a gun, and have him shoot you just so you can sue him.
Sounds like you don't have much experience with Dagenais yet. This is his usual method of arguing -- he will descend into utter absurdities, remaining straight-faced all the while, just to avoid admitting that perhaps he hadn't thought things through from the beginning. Dagenais cannot ever be wrong, even when he's nuts.

- Warren

[Dagenais]

As for the rape victim, if she has a glock or doesn't use a safety, or even practices gun use, it's over for the assailant.



You are a sexual predator. You stalk women in attempt to rape them. You see the butt end of a gun in the purse of one of your potential targets. Do you still pursue them?



What kind of retarded question was that?

First, if she has her gun visible walking around in public, she's an idiot.

If a women is walking around public with a gun visible, getting raped is the least of her problems. If I saw a women with a gun around public, I'd first call the police. I'm sure store owners would too as she walks into the store, flaunting her gun.

If she doesn't use the safety, she's even more of a dumbass than you portray her to be.

[Dagenais]

Sounds like you don't have much experience with Dagenais yet. This is his usual method of arguing -- he will descend into utter absurdities, remaining straight-faced all the while, just to avoid admitting that perhaps he hadn't thought things through from the beginning. Dagenais cannot ever be wrong, even when he's nuts.



Still bitter that I had an Admin of an OpenBSD forum correct you, on OpenBSD?

And those lawsuits have happened.

A teenager in Denver robbed a house and received 1.2 Million for getting shot.

Sounds like a plan.

[chroot]

Once again, your little cheerleader said only "a virus could exist, but I don't know of any." Since my challenge was for you to give me the name of a virus, you failed my challenge. It's another good example of your I'd rather be insane than wrong tactic.

- Warren

[chroot]

A teenager in Denver robbed a house and received 1.2 Million for getting shot.
Do you really not understand the concept of extremity? Just because this happened once -- and you're not even sharing the details, which are undoubtedly important -- doesn't mean it happens regularly, or will ever happen again. Arguments that are supported only by one extreme example are very weak arguments. It's silly of you to make such arguments and expect us to do anything but laugh at you.

- Warren

[loseyourname]

In the future, I will be certain that any criminal who enters my house is shot completely dead so as to minimize the risk of lawsuit.

[Dagenais]

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/01/feb1.html#0202c

The details are there. You want more examples, search Google.

What's laughable is that you try to manipulate what the Admin said, in order to prove yourself right. A virus probably existed, but likely didn't spread very far. A few more people pointed that out in the thread.

What's even more hilarious was that you put a note in my post reminding me that you're an admin. Scared to lose face?

The most memorable one was where you said "SUVs aren't part of American culture, you don't know what you're talking about", or something along those lines.

I linked you to a news article claiming that SUVs were American culture.

I don't blame you though, if I was American, I would deny my culture too. Gun culture, culture of violence and arrogance when wrong. Also the culture to flaunt their power.

[Dagenais]

In the future, I will be certain that any criminal who enters my house is shot completely dead so as to minimize the risk of lawsuit.

Actually, this is sort of an example of where a robber sues because his fellow crook was shot dead. Make sure to kill all of them.

http://www.alexharris.co.uk/viewNewsStory.asp?id=1486

[chroot]

What's laughable is that you try to manipulate what the Admin said, in order to prove yourself right. A virus probably existed, but likely didn't spread very far. A few more people pointed that out in the thread.
It doesn't matter what the admin said, since his response did not include the names of any OpenBSD virii, which is what I challenged you to find. Once again, you're trying to claim victory even while you clearly did not succeed in finding the name of an OpenBSD virus. Good job!
What's even more hilarious was that you put a note in my post reminding me that you're an admin. Scared to lose face?
I reminded you that I'm an admin here -- and I'll remind you again right now -- to impress upon you that I am displeased with your behavior here on this forum. Your style of debate is dangerously close to what I would consider trolling, and we don't permit trolling here. If you would like to continue using your bizarre (and ineffective) debate techniques, I have every right to send you elsewhere.
The most memorable one was where you said "SUVs aren't part of American culture, you don't know what you're talking about", or something along those lines.

I linked you to a news article claiming that SUVs were American culture.
That's an opinion, isn't it? Is my opinion less valid than the author's?
I don't blame you though, if I was American, I would deny my culture too. Gun culture, culture of violence and arrogance when wrong. Also the culture to flaunt their power.
That's flame bait, and you know it. Quit pushing buttons, or I'll have to ask you to leave.

- Warren

[Ivan Seeking]

I have guns, knives, a brush hook [a nasty weapon made for clearing berry bushes], and various thumpers always somewhere nearby; unless we have kids visiting of course. I guess this comes from growing up in the big mean city. During the 27 years that I lived in the Los Angeles area I knew of several instances of family friends and neighbors who were attacked or killed in their own homes. Now we are so remote that I worry more about the isolation in the rare event that someone bad did come along.

My first choice is the 12 gauge; though I would only grab it if I fully intended to use it. You don't bluff with weapons.

[Dagenais]

Once again, you're trying to claim victory even while you clearly did not succeed in finding the name of an OpenBSD virus.

This isn't a contest. The question at hand was whether or not an OpenBSD virus existed. People at that thread agreed that they did, and so did the Admin at OpenBSD forums. Therefore they exist - period. What else is there for you to deny? They exist, contrary to your own claims.

If you would like to continue using your bizarre (and ineffective)

In your opinion. What's ineffective is claiming things like, "SUVs aren't part of American Culture", then spazzing out when I hand you a link that declares the opposite.

Is my opinion less valid than the author's?

Yes, it is, since he put thought into it as opposed to typing it out for the sake of argument.

That's flame bait, and you know it.

Deny it all you want. It just proves further ignorance. That's what a large amount of the world thinks of you, and not realizing it won't help.

You're wrong, and you threaten a member because of it. You state something like it's a fact, say, "You don't know what you're talking about", and when proven wrong you write, "Just an opinion."

[chroot]

This isn't a contest. The question at hand was whether or not an OpenBSD virus existed. People at that thread agreed that they did, and so did the Admin at OpenBSD forums. Therefore they exist - period. What else is there for you to deny? They exist, contrary to your own claims.
If you can't even name one, how can you say they exist? The best your cheerleader could say -- and you really seem to like him -- is that he thinks it's "very likely" one was written. How is that definitive proof? He can't even name one! It's just his opinion, unsupported by any evidence. My opinion, that one cannot find a single example of an OpenBSD virus, seems well supported. By the way, I didn't see anyone else supporting you in that thread.
Yes, it is, since he put thought into it as opposed to typing it out for the sake of argument.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Again.

Keep pushing buttons, and you'll wind up banned. It's simple really.

- Warren

[Moonbear]

If an intruder is unarmed, and you use deadly force against them, yes, you are the one who might face the charges. Self-defense as a defense only allows you to use comparable force against someone...if they hit you with their hand, you can't use a baseball bat to hit back. And if the gun you used is unregistered, you're in an even bigger heap of trouble. At least in the U.S. Some of you are talking about Canadian laws I suspect, and I don't know what those are.

As for the sexual assault example, any sort of weapon or tool for self defense is useless if it's in your purse. Quickest thing is for the criminal to just snatch the purse away and get it completly out of the picture. And even if they don't do that, do you think they are going to wait while you fumble through your purse trying to find that can of mace? When I lived in an area with a high crime rate, I carried a small knife in my pocket and walked with my hand in that pocket. Chose a small one because it wouldn't be deadly (I wasn't going to stop someone with a gun by using a knife) and that way it wouldn't kill me if I had it turned against me, the point was just to injure the attacker enough so they couldn't chase me while I was running away. I always figured if I needed to use it, I'd aim low...most men's natural response is to protect their crotch when a woman aims low, and I'd let them deflect my hand right toward the femoral...or at least do a good number on their quadriceps. If that didn't work, then I was taught to just wait for the right timing...at some point he has to take his hands off you just long enough to undo his fly if rape is his intent, so that's when you get away.

I was also taught a really easy move that even a small person could use against a large person, but the problem was that while it would let you pin them in place, you weren't going anywhere yourself either.

A cop once told me that most people who carry mace have no idea how to use it and often wind up being the one it is used against. Either they don't know how to operate it at all or they point it the wrong way or the attacker gets it out of their hand and sprays them with it. He suggested practicing hitting a target on a tree with it to make sure you know how to use it.

With guns, the moment you hesitate, you're dead. Most law-abiding people hesitate, and the criminal won't.

*Oh, one other thing a cop told me...there's no single answer to every self-defense situation. Sometimes you just have to use your instincts and hope they are right. Some people will brandish a weapon, but are scared to death to actually use it, others will fire at the slightest flinch. All sort of things have worked to thwart sexual assaults, from the basics of just fighting back, to someone who rolled up in a ball and wouldn't budge, to someone who just didn't fight at all, or one woman who told the attacker she had her period and he stopped cold.

[franznietzsche]

It depends on where you get shot. Stop making idiotic assumptions. If you get shot in the leg, you'll be wounded badly but you won't die. You'll much more likely die from a head shot from a small handgun.


A shotgun held at my shoulder is not going to shoot the guy in leg.

Also, you're changing your question. You didn't say anything about a shotgun, you simply stated a gun. Nothing about shotguns.


Shotgun has been the only weapon we've been discussing.


An intelligent criminal would more likely just sneak into your house and take your stuff. An experienced robber is bound to be more stealthy than you as you come stomping down the stairs making 'intimidating' sounds with your shotgun.

I know the layout of my house, and which floor boards creak and which ones don't. The idea isn't to scare him from one side of the house, its to get into the same room, and then alert him to the presence of the shotgun. At that range, he's dead, even if he manages to get a shot off in the dark in an unfamiliar setting.


You seem to believe that your gun will make your house a safer place, and robbers will always avoid your house because they somehow know, you have a gun in there. You're so paranoid, you even believe that they'll let you find your gun, and let you shoot them.

I would be smart enough to know where the gun is, so as to not ahve to find it.


You haven't demonstrated that, unless you own that special flash light, and have aimed it at yourself. The other person who mentioned that didn't even read the descriptions.

Sorry blinding someone is not incapacitating them. you're the one raving about the competence of the house burglar, not us.


Gun use, never promotes piece.

The ironing is delicious.


is it even legal to own a glock in the US? I ask because, unless i'm confused, they're ceramic, not metal, and thus the gun itself would not be seen by a metal detector.


Actually, this is sort of an example of where a robber sues because his fellow crook was shot dead. Make sure to kill all of them.

This is why i hate democrats, they support these kinds of people. Morality be damned in america.


This isn't a contest. The question at hand was whether or not an OpenBSD virus existed. People at that thread agreed that they did, and so did the Admin at OpenBSD forums. Therefore they exist - period. What else is there for you to deny? They exist, contrary to your own claims.

Truth isn't democratic, cretin.


Yes, it is, since he put thought into it as opposed to typing it out for the sake of argument.

The horror! The horror! O most horrible truth.

[Eh]

It depends on where you get shot. Stop making idiotic assumptions. If you get shot in the leg, you'll be wounded badly but you won't die. You'll much more likely die from a head shot from a small handgun.
When you point a shotgun at another individual, you're not going to hit them in the leg. All you need to do is point, and you're going to hit your target. That's hardly an idiotic assumption. As I said, that ease of use is the reason shotguns are (justifiably) the most popular choice of self defense weapons.
Also, you're changing your question. You didn't say anything about a shotgun, you simply stated a gun. Nothing about shotguns.
I've been talking about shotguns here. I wouldn't argue a handgun or rifle is a good weapon for self/home defense. They simply do not have the advantages of a shotgun.
More reason to kill you first. Then loot your house. Is the criminal going to wait for you to get out of bed so you can fetch a shotgun, and you can have a good old shootout?
Since it only takes a few seconds to grab a shotgun, this all depends on how fast you hear the intruder and their intentions.

But I believe we are drifting from the point here. You have posted a glorified flashlight as an alternative to a firearm. That means something that could replace a deadly weapon. In any situation where your life is threatened by an introducer/attacker, would you rather be equipped with a shotgun or some light? It's rather simple and ultimately comes down to that.
You seem to believe that your gun will make your house a safer place, and robbers will always avoid your house because they somehow know, you have a gun in there. You're so paranoid, you even believe that they'll let you find your gun, and let you shoot them.
Actually, there's been no argument from me about how safe keeping a gun in your house will make you. Now you're the one making assumptions. Personally, I don't keep a loaded firearm at home, and I doubt I'll have a need for it. But I am arguing that a shotgun is an effective weapon to have in an encounter. More importantly, it is a much more practical weapon to have than a glorified flashlight as far as being able to defend yourself.
You haven't demonstrated that, unless you own that special flash light, and have aimed it at yourself. The other person who mentioned that didn't even read the descriptions. [/quote]
Actually, I've shown that pointing a light at someone is not going to prevent them from firing at you. A shotgun hit will. Case closed.
Obviously, you don't get the different types of light and the different types of power. Is the light from the sun silly? How about the blinding light from those small laser pens? Natural light can be dangerous,
Sure, against an unarmed opponent. Up against an armed criminal, who do you think will win?
You're on a physics forum, time to stop making dumb comments about light, electromagnetic radiation, and rays. Light can be used for many purposed and is hardly "silly" like you claim.
The only thing silly is the claim that this light could be an alternative to a firearm. Indeed, one would have to be quite silly to assume anyone could defend themselves against any attacker armed with a gun.

Now then, stop making assumptions about me and stick to the point.

[Dagenais]

The best your cheerleader could say -- and you really seem to like him

Completely irrelevant and flame bait. Oh wait, now I sound like you.

By the way, I didn't see anyone else supporting you in that thread.

DDuardo cleaned up the thread dimwit.

"Pushing buttons" - in short, if you're right, he'll seek revenge.


As for the sexual assault example, any sort of weapon or tool for self defense is useless if it's in your purse.

Finally someone with common sense! And why would it even be visible in her purse? Worst scenario ever.

so they couldn't chase me while I was running away.

According to a special from Oprah, if you run away, especially in a zig zag, chances are less than 10% that you'll be shot.

Shotgun has been the only weapon we've been discussing.


No, this whole thread in general is about Guns.

I would be smart enough to know where the gun is, so as to not ahve to find it.


Is it right next to your bed, with the safety off, and loaded? And if you say yes, it's even more of a consistent danger to your family than any "high teenager" looking for stereos, in which you claim you'll shoot if they don't follow your instructions. Note: They're high
With guns, the moment you hesitate, you're dead. Most law-abiding people hesitate, and the criminal won't.



I already mentioned this. Just the thought about putting lead through a human will make a lot of people hesitate. These criminals deal with "tough guys" who think they can defend their home with their gun collection, and pointing a gun at them will provoke them.

[chroot]

DDuardo cleaned up the thread dimwit.
No, he didn't. He can only soft-delete posts, and I can read all soft-deleted posts. Good try though, dimwit.

- Warren

[Dagenais]

Despite the fact that I can't see the posts, your lying still doesn't cover up the evidence in the "Windows versus The world Thread", in which I remind you multiple times, that there were people who also believed OpenBSD had viruses but didn't have a chance to become rampant:

"It was 2 opinions against 1."

And:

" Like the other person said, you can't truly believe OpenBSD is completely virus free. Somebody had to have written some virus to attack it.
It's common sense vs a biased opinion. 2 users have noted this, it's just that you're denying it."

That's simply sick. Not only have you lied and threatened others to save face, you've also denied saying things in previous threads when proven wrong. Worthless.

[chroot]

You're quoting yourself.

- Warren

[chroot]

Let's not forget one of your first comments on the OpenBSD issue:

Who would bother to send a virus infecting OpenBSD?

- Warren

[franznietzsche]

"It was 2 opinions against 1."




Again, truth is not democratic. That you would think so reveals you to be an infantile idiot.

You made the thread about guns, we have been talking about shotguns. Thank you for taking the time to read our posts.

[Dagenais]

Again, truth is not democratic.

Then why did he have to lie about it, and claim I had no support when it was clear I did?

Stop blindly agreeing with the admin, you look like an idiotic member of the Republicans just agreeing with someone because he has power.

[chroot]

LOL, now you're attacking Republicans? This thread just keeps getting better and better.

- Warren

[The_Professional]

There was a recent news here about a young woman who was raped. Without going into further details the attacker had a gun, the young woman was taken in different areas and repeatedly...

Now the boyfriend saw it at the beginning of the assault and when he saw the attacker had a gun he decided to call 911 first. When he came back the attacker was gone and so is his girfriend. It's very tragic. On that situation things may be different if the boyfriend had a firearm and was properly trained to handle one.

I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess or carry guns, but they should at least be required to attend a seminar on handling firearms..etc, and some psychological testing, background test..

Or just study martial arts :)

[Adam]

1) It's "viruses".

2) The reason most viruses are for Windows is simply because that's what most people use. I haven't used OpenBSD myself, but I have no doubt that I could write something to screw it up royally after some experience with the system.

[The Bob]

Slow-drying paint? I get the purpose of the rest, but i don't get how that one is a deterrent.

This is simple. You paint it on your drainpipes and when a theif jumps on it to climb then will slip down.

The Bob (2004 ©)

[jimmy p]

Ooh is that like anti-climb paint. I hate that bloody stuff. Encountered it many times when retrieving the football from behind the local Scout Hut... as if it isnt bad enough having spiked fences...

[The Bob]

Ooh is that like anti-climb paint. I hate that bloody stuff. Encountered it many times when retrieving the football from behind the local Scout Hut... as if it isnt bad enough having spiked fences...

Lol. Should control the ball. :tongue2:

The Bob (2004 ©)

[Dagenais]

There was a recent news here about a young woman who was raped. Without going into further details the attacker had a gun, the young woman was taken in different areas and repeatedly...



Did they ever find the rapist?

Are you sort of suggesting that everyone or close to everyone on the street carry a gun to avoid this?

[russ_watters]

On that situation things may be different if the boyfriend had a firearm and was properly trained to handle one. Yes, if that were the case, the situation would be different: both the boyfriend and girlfriend would likely be dead.I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess or carry guns, but they should at least be required to attend a seminar on handling firearms..etc, and some psychological testing, background test.. I agree, but with severe restrictions.

[The_Professional]

Yes, if that were the case, the situation would be different: both the boyfriend and girlfriend would likely be dead.

I've thought about that. It's also a possibility but since the news was pretty vague, and it didn't go into details on how far the attacker was or whether the attacker was facing behind. Just one of the many assumptions.


Did they ever find the rapist?

They didn't find the rapist yet. But they have a sketch based on eyewitness reports. And another thing is that some people heard what was going on and was too afraid to call the cops.


Are you sort of suggesting that everyone or close to everyone on the street carry a gun to avoid this?

Not at all.

[Dagenais]

Hey Chroot, you claim I didn't have support in the thread about OpenBSD?

Don't lie, it'll come back to bite you in the ***:

Kronchev wrote:

he has a point, and yes i have MUCH experiance with all of that. virus writers do so for fame, if someone wrote a virus for openbsd (and there ARE viruses for it, dont think there arent), they wouldnt get much publicity as few people use it. also, security and virus-proofness are two completly separate things. if you run a virus, you are giving it free access to do what it wants, thats how they work. since the only people using BSD and any unix variant are experianced with computers, theyre not going to do something stupid like that.

Who do you think you are? Castanza?

[franznietzsche]

Then why did he have to lie about it, and claim I had no support when it was clear I did?

Stop blindly agreeing with the admin, you look like an idiotic member of the Republicans just agreeing with someone because he has power.


WHAT THE )*&($@^(*&@$??????

Are you asserting that truth is democratic? And as for agreeing i openly admit ignorance on the issue of OpenBSD viruses (i'm not even entirely clear on what OpenBSD is, i jsut assumed it was forum or server software or some such), all i said is that "majority rules" does not apply to truth, unless you are about 5 years old you should have the intellectual maturity to recognize this.