Alternative to Guns: Self-Defense Devices from Surefire.com

[Dagenais]

Those who use firearms as a self-defense tool for their house, car or store should really consider one of 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.

 

[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.

 

[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!

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?

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 nervous.

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 nervous.

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 laser 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.


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