Dagenais said:Different type of flashlight. It was mentioned in the link and in this thread. Not that hard to get.
The Bob said: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 ©)
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?
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
f I'm about to commit a home invasion
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?
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.
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.Dagenais said: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.
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.If you're going to commit a home invasion, you're ready to take that chance.
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.A robber isn't going to just "run out the door." He'll probably shoot back, and catch you first.
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.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.
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.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've got to be kidding. If you get hit with a shotgun blast, you're dead, period.
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.
And that's really the point. No self defense weapon compares to a shotgun, because anyone can use one with deadly results.
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.
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.aeroegnr said: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.
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?
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.
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.Dagenais said:A teenager in Denver robbed a house and received 1.2 Million for getting shot.
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.
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!Dagenais said: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.
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.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?
That's an opinion, isn't it? Is my opinion less valid than the author's?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 flame bait, and you know it. Quit pushing buttons, or I'll have to ask you to leave.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.
Once again, you're trying to claim victory even while you clearly did not succeed in finding the name of an OpenBSD virus.
If you would like to continue using your bizarre (and ineffective)
Is my opinion less valid than the author's?
That's flame bait, and you know it.
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.Dagenais said: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.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Again.Yes, it is, since he put thought into it as opposed to typing it out for the sake of argument.
Dagenais said: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.
Dagenais said:Also, you're changing your question. You didn't say anything about a shotgun, you simply stated a gun. Nothing about shotguns.
Dagenais said: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.
Dagenais said: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.
Dagenais said: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.
Dagenais said:Gun use, never promotes piece.
Dagenais said: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.
Dagenais said: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.
Dagenais said:Yes, it is, since he put thought into it as opposed to typing it out for the sake of argument.
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.Dagenais said: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.
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.Also, you're changing your question. You didn't say anything about a shotgun, you simply stated a gun. Nothing about shotguns.
Since it only takes a few seconds to grab a shotgun, this all depends on how fast you hear the intruder and their intentions.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?
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 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.
Sure, against an unarmed opponent. Up against an armed criminal, who do you think will win?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,
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.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 best your cheerleader could say -- and you really seem to like him
By the way, I didn't see anyone else supporting you in that thread.
As for the sexual assault example, any sort of weapon or tool for self defense is useless if it's in your purse.
so they couldn't chase me while I was running away.
Shotgun has been the only weapon we've been discussing.
I would be smart enough to know where the gun is, so as to not ahve to find it.
With guns, the moment you hesitate, you're dead. Most law-abiding people hesitate, and the criminal won't.
No, he didn't. He can only soft-delete posts, and I can read all soft-deleted posts. Good try though, dimwit.Dagenais said:DDuardo cleaned up the thread dimwit.
Dagenais said:Who would bother to send a virus infecting OpenBSD?
Dagenais said:"It was 2 opinions against 1."
Again, truth is not democratic.