Matrix Games Forums

Sorry - I know I said I'd leave - but just one last thing.

We all think the world has lost it's way - and the reason we think that is because we see a lack of Police, a lack of action, a lack of authority and a lack of respect. When there is action, it's battered down by human rights activists. Human Rights Activists have a place on this earth - and a very valuable place (just ask anyone who relied on Liberty (I think it was them) when incarcerated abroad) - but when those rights - the rights of the criminal - impinge on the rights of the victim - that's when we despair. That's when we decide the world has gone south.

I had massive respect for my parents - and they earned that by being decent. And because of that respect, I never EVER wanted the police or the teachers or anyone in a position of authority to contact my parents - so surrounded by what I was surrounded by, I found the decent path. I didn't hang about with the boys that caused the trouble, smashed windows, stole from shops...I took alot of crap for being like that - but I'd rather go through that than have the authorities turn up at my parents house...and I need to point this out too - NOT because I was scared of a slap or a beating - but because I respected my mum and dad and knew how disappointed they would be in me.

There's a serious lack of respect for authority and it's being watered down day after day by goodytwoshoes who really need other things to do. Respect for your parents is a massive player in how you're going to grow up - because you want to be the best that you can be to pay them back. If you have no respect for your parents - you have no respect for any other authority - no matter how brutal it is. And parents need to understand that they have to pass that respect on - they have to teach little johnnie to show respect - not stick him in his room with his X-Box because he's being a pain in the arse.

One "small" caveat - I am fully aware that there are decent parents out there who bring their kids up well - and the kid goes bad anyway - that's outside influences and basically a stronger outside influence than you could impress on your kid...it happens. But - I do believe it's in the hands of the parents...and in order to change the way society is going, people need to start giving a shit about their kids.

One tough stance I'd like to see adopted - removal of human and civil rights. You abuse someones rights, you lose yours. That's it.

All but the very basic rights like protection whilst in prison, food, clothing, bedding - that's it...the rest? You've done away with them when you abused someone elses rights. There is too much emphasis on a criminals rights - they have lost them. That's it. Get that right - and the people won't feel like the world is running riot.

That was me, in a home defense situation, if I fire my weapon, it is to kill, not wound, not maim, but to kill. I aim center mass and fire until said bad guy is no longer a threat. So yes, if you break into my home while I am there, you have just been tried and executed. Period. No lawyers, no sympathy. If you survive the ordeal, doubtful, then you can have the prison sentence.

If you want to say it is taking the law into my own hands, then so be it. Obviously the cops failed to prevent the break in and cannot help me, so I am on my own. Hell, the cops are not even REQUIRED to respond to a 911 call. Check the LA Riots and such. I know for a fact that response time in Irving TX where I live that a "man with a gun" response time is about 6 minutes. I know because that is how long it took them to get there when I drew down on those punks. It took them 8 minutes when I shot a pit bull that charged a 8 year old girl walking down the street, even after the neighbors had called and said that it looked like me and the dog owner were about to have it out. Would have been his mistake.

So no, I don't place alot of faith in police being where I need them when I need them.

I knew it was you 2ndACR - I just didn't want to repeat it and thought if people wanted to know who it was they could read the thread - put it in context.

I can't argue with your views. I just don't know if carrying a gun just doesn't make the bad guys up their game. Certainly a cornered criminal is a desparate person and likely to do things that perhaps he wouldn't do - having said that, because he knows you're likely to have a gun, he's not likely to turn up without one.

Like I said - stay safe (sounds like you will! [:D] )

Nope, the concealed carry law actually makes the bad guys stop and think "does he have a gun" if they come to the conclusion that someone probably does have one, they 95% of the time go find someone that does not.

I plan to and will.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Maybe I need to be a little clearer - when I mentioned "taking the law into your own hands" I was specifically talking about the comment about being judge and juror (tried by me and sentenced by me) - and I just sense an underlying theme through the thread that shoot to kill is an option (and some peoples first option). That's what I was referring to when I said taking the law into your own hands.

At least there's no chance for mistrial unlike with judge scum.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

And "after the fact"? I 100% agree that no-one should be in your home - but wth are we paying law enforcement for when we have to arm ourselves to be safe?

You're not paying them enough. You'd need to have cops on every street corner to be safe. No nation can afford such a burden.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

One tough stance I'd like to see adopted - removal of human and civil rights. You abuse someones rights, you lose yours. That's it.

All but the very basic rights like protection whilst in prison, food, clothing, bedding - that's it...the rest? You've done away with them when you abused someone elses rights. There is too much emphasis on a criminals rights - they have lost them. That's it.

Isn't it how it already works? I'm pretty sure that prisoners don't have right to freedom of travelling and stuff like that?

ORIGINAL: Gunhawk

>>You are correct about society, it is failing.<<

It is failing, and failing badly. All over the world.

Here's an example:

http://news.yahoo.com/home-invasion-sur ... 58050.html

Society is broke...where have you been.......?

You need to open your eyes and see whats going on...

I've gone through the mill enough to be very envious of 2ndACR...I'm sure I wouldn't have had 8 gang members at my door all tooled up for instance, if they thought I may have a gun...I don't actually believe in that case they would be at the door with a gun either, they just wouldn't have gone as it wouldn't have been worth it. Similar on a lot smaller scale to the cold war arms race, which nullified all threats.

As for the police...underfunded and to be honest a joke..a policeman told me during the troubles that their hands where tied through red tape and they have strict guidelines on what they can do, and his own words where pretty much nothing..the criminals are protected..he said years ago we could give them a quick backhand..sadly not the case anymore.
Anyone who thinks the UK police are effective is deluded. As the police themselves don't even think they are.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Taser for home defense? I would never recommend that. When a criminal makes the choice to break into a house that is probably occupied, the only thing to trust then is a gun for defense. Like I stated earlier, if a criminal is willing to risk his life robbing me, I am willing to oblige him by taking said life.

Well, no. This is a circular argument: no one risks his life in a break-in, only jail time. Of course if you guarantee that the criminal is risking his life by packing a firearm as a preemptive measure, he could be more inclined to bring with him an assault rifle just in case. Beside, reason doesn't work as a weapon against someone who just wants to shoot - as this thread shows.

Re: "tasers don't stop people, guns do!" - experience also shows that people wounded (even mortally so) by guns are often able to return fire just fine. OTOH, a 50,000 volts sustained taser charge, maybe in the balls, could really surprise some dudes...

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Taser for home defense? I would never recommend that. When a criminal makes the choice to break into a house that is probably occupied, the only thing to trust then is a gun for defense. Like I stated earlier, if a criminal is willing to risk his life robbing me, I am willing to oblige him by taking said life.

Well, no. This is a circular argument: no one risks his life in a break-in, only jail time. Of course if you guarantee that the criminal is risking his life by packing a firearm as a preemptive measure, he could be more inclined to bring with him an assault rifle just in case. Beside, reason doesn't work as a weapon against someone who just wants to shoot - as this thread shows.

Re: "tasers don't stop people, guns do!" - experience also shows that people wounded (even mortally so) by guns are often able to return fire just fine. OTOH, a 50,000 volts sustained taser charge, maybe in the balls, could really surprise some dudes...

I'm not sure what your point is here, but if you invade someones home you certainly *do* risk your life as it only makes sense to assume a worst case scenario, and it's legal to shoot someone invading your home. Nothing circular about that.

No burglar is going to carry an assault rifle for protection. That's just plain ridiculous.

A person who has been shot in the chest by 12 gauge 00 Buckshot or .45 caliber jacketed hollow point round is *not* going to be able to return fire "just fine". And, of course, you *are* going to shoot the invader more than once. I'm trained to "double tap" every time.

ORIGINAL: Gunhawk
I'm not sure what your point is here, but if you invade someones home you certainly *do* risk your life as it only makes sense to assume a worst case scenario, and it's legal to shoot someone invading your home. Nothing circular about that.

Notice how, for "legal to shoot someone invading your home" it must be assumed that, in the given country, it is legal to own weapons for self-protection. But still...

No burglar is going to carry an assault rifle for protection. That's just plain ridiculous.

A person who has been shot in the chest by 12 gauge 00 Buckshot or .45 caliber jacketed hollow point round is *not* going to be able to return fire "just fine". And, of course, you *are* going to shoot the invader more than once. I'm trained to "double tap" every time.

...The two dangerous assumptions somehow I never see tackled are right here.

The first one is that usually the homeowner expects that the intruder will - for some reason - follow a script. The intruder will never be prepared for the eventuality that the homeowner is armed; he will always recognize his duty to die and offer the chest so to go down in a glorious blaze; he will never be more proficient with weapons than the homeowner; he will never pack more firepower than the homeowner; there will never be two intruders; it will never happen that only an intruder makes noise and at that point the second one remains quiet so to surprise the homeowner; and so on.

The second - and most dangerous - assumption is that the homeowner will follow his own script without fault. He will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; the intruder will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; generally speaking, there will never be a sudden noise/unexpected shadow that will make the homeowner jump and fire prematurely; he will never keep his finger on the guard instead than on the trigger; he will always keep the correct pose and the gun barrel will never smash against his nose after the first shot; there will never be a skateboard left by the son in the dark; he will always either kill or critically wound the intruder before he reacts - and never just graze him; and so on.

And all the above will be done right/go the right way the first time it is done, without rehearsals, in a tense situation, usually at night and in the dark, after having just been woken up.

Special Ops and SWAT teams train over, and over, and over so that "everything goes according to a script". It is their job, and they, too, occasionally see things go pear shaped. But in our minds it will never happen to us.

Frankly, it only takes a First Person Shooter to see how things can go wrong when you realize that you have five seconds to assimilate everything in a sudden situation, and then the same five seconds to develop a plan, press the correct keys, aim right and be sure that you did everything correctly. This even if while reading the manual or doing the tutorial everything is as clear as the sun. Add that in RL you don't even have a single save to rely on. Frankly, given the basics, I'd rather pork with a taser than with a .45.

BTW, while reading our little scenario, did you remember to remove the safety? [;)]

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: Gunhawk
I'm not sure what your point is here, but if you invade someones home you certainly *do* risk your life as it only makes sense to assume a worst case scenario, and it's legal to shoot someone invading your home. Nothing circular about that.

Notice how, for "legal to shoot someone invading your home" it must be assumed that, in the given country, it is legal to own weapons for self-protection. But still...

No burglar is going to carry an assault rifle for protection. That's just plain ridiculous.

A person who has been shot in the chest by 12 gauge 00 Buckshot or .45 caliber jacketed hollow point round is *not* going to be able to return fire "just fine". And, of course, you *are* going to shoot the invader more than once. I'm trained to "double tap" every time.

...The two dangerous assumptions somehow I never see tackled are right here.

The first one is that usually the homeowner expects that the intruder will - for some reason - follow a script. The intruder will never be prepared for the eventuality that the homeowner is armed; he will always recognize his duty to die and offer the chest so to go down in a glorious blaze; he will never be more proficient with weapons than the homeowner; he will never pack more firepower than the homeowner; there will never be two intruders; it will never happen that only an intruder makes noise and at that point the second one remains quiet so to surprise the homeowner; and so on.

The second - and most dangerous - assumption is that the homeowner will follow his own script without fault. He will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; the intruder will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; generally speaking, there will never be a sudden noise/unexpected shadow that will make the homeowner jump and fire prematurely; he will never keep his finger on the guard instead than on the trigger; he will always keep the correct pose and the gun barrel will never smash against his nose after the first shot; there will never be a skateboard left by the son in the dark; he will always either kill or critically wound the intruder before he reacts - and never just graze him; and so on.

And all the above will be done right/go the right way the first time it is done, without rehearsals, in a tense situation, usually at night and in the dark, after having just been woken up.

Special Ops and SWAT teams train over, and over, and over so that "everything goes according to a script". It is their job, and they, too, occasionally see things go pear shaped. But in our minds it will never happen to us.

Frankly, it only takes a First Person Shooter to see how things can go wrong when you realize that you have five seconds to assimilate everything in a sudden situation, and then the same five seconds to develop a plan, press the correct keys, aim right and be sure that you did everything correctly. This even if while reading the manual or doing the tutorial everything is as clear as the sun. Add that in RL you don't even have a single save to rely on. Frankly, given the basics, I'd rather pork with a taser than with a .45.

BTW, while reading our little scenario, did you remember to remove the safety? [;)]

All very good points and certainly something that any responsible firearm owner has/should consider. I have done so and many years ago as a free citizen in a free country founded on individuality, my choice is clear. I'll take my chances with all the things that could go wrong versus the compassion and mercy of an invader.

Now ask those same SWAT people what they would grab during a home invasion in their own home. A weapon or a taser?

I think you'd be surprised Vincenzo.

Buon pomeriggio!

mo reb

ORIGINAL: Halsey

My first line of defense is a mean protective dog (Belgian Malinois).

While I stand at the door with my Walther in my hand, I open the door and say "get em girl"!
My dog has flushed a few trespassers out of my yard without firing a shot.
They don't come back.[;)][:D]

My first line of defense is Cato Fong-hiding in various closets and armoirs.

Come on M'cColleagues:

My first line of defense is Cato Fong-hiding in various closets and armoirs.

trouble is Vin by the time you got close enough with a tazer they could have battered you to death with a baseball bat\iron bar or gun You have to get close to use a tazer...to close for me..could be a smackhead..diryt needle whack in your arm as you try and tazer him...no thanks

Sorry but I would have to agree with Missouri_Rebel. I would rather being going to court to exsplain to a jury why I shot someone than my family going to my funeral. Ill take my chances of tripping on my flip flops.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: Gunhawk
I'm not sure what your point is here, but if you invade someones home you certainly *do* risk your life as it only makes sense to assume a worst case scenario, and it's legal to shoot someone invading your home. Nothing circular about that.

Notice how, for "legal to shoot someone invading your home" it must be assumed that, in the given country, it is legal to own weapons for self-protection. But still...

No burglar is going to carry an assault rifle for protection. That's just plain ridiculous.

A person who has been shot in the chest by 12 gauge 00 Buckshot or .45 caliber jacketed hollow point round is *not* going to be able to return fire "just fine". And, of course, you *are* going to shoot the invader more than once. I'm trained to "double tap" every time.

...The two dangerous assumptions somehow I never see tackled are right here.

The first one is that usually the homeowner expects that the intruder will - for some reason - follow a script. The intruder will never be prepared for the eventuality that the homeowner is armed; he will always recognize his duty to die and offer the chest so to go down in a glorious blaze; he will never be more proficient with weapons than the homeowner; he will never pack more firepower than the homeowner; there will never be two intruders; it will never happen that only an intruder makes noise and at that point the second one remains quiet so to surprise the homeowner; and so on.

The second - and most dangerous - assumption is that the homeowner will follow his own script without fault. He will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; the intruder will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; generally speaking, there will never be a sudden noise/unexpected shadow that will make the homeowner jump and fire prematurely; he will never keep his finger on the guard instead than on the trigger; he will always keep the correct pose and the gun barrel will never smash against his nose after the first shot; there will never be a skateboard left by the son in the dark; he will always either kill or critically wound the intruder before he reacts - and never just graze him; and so on.

And all the above will be done right/go the right way the first time it is done, without rehearsals, in a tense situation, usually at night and in the dark, after having just been woken up.

Special Ops and SWAT teams train over, and over, and over so that "everything goes according to a script". It is their job, and they, too, occasionally see things go pear shaped. But in our minds it will never happen to us.

Frankly, it only takes a First Person Shooter to see how things can go wrong when you realize that you have five seconds to assimilate everything in a sudden situation, and then the same five seconds to develop a plan, press the correct keys, aim right and be sure that you did everything correctly. This even if while reading the manual or doing the tutorial everything is as clear as the sun. Add that in RL you don't even have a single save to rely on. Frankly, given the basics, I'd rather pork with a taser than with a .45.

BTW, while reading our little scenario, did you remember to remove the safety? [;)]

All very good points and certainly something that any responsible firearm owner has/should consider. I have done so and many years ago as a free citizen in a free country founded on individuality, my choice is clear. I'll take my chances with all the things that could go wrong versus the compassion and mercy of an invader.

Now ask those same SWAT people what they would grab during a home invasion in their own home. A weapon or a taser?

I think you'd be surprised Vincenzo.

Buon pomeriggio!

mo reb

Well, to our Italian compadre, Yes, that is why I said check your local laws. 90% of the US allows a home owner to defend his house from a break in. So lucky for us, we only suffer home invasions in the States that strictly control firearms. But down here in Texas and other states, the criminals go after homes they KNOW to be empty due to the fact the H/O will likely go for a gun first and then call the police. They even avoid homes next to occupied houses for fear that a neighbor will grab a gun. Criminals are not afraid of jail, but they are terrified of a armed home owner.

Now, as to the criminal having more firepower than me, HA, I never fear that one. I got my 2 shotguns, 2 AR15 (1 full sized pre ban and the other a M4 version), my .270 and a .22LR, .45 pistol, 2 9mm. Ammo at last count stood at 6500 rounds .223/5.56, 1000 rounds .22LR, 250 .45 and 400 9mm and probably 400 shotgun shells. I keep a lot on hand because when we go to the range, it will break the bank. Plus I don't trust our gun grabbing politicians.

So good luck on the bad guy out gunning me in my home. My daughter shoots the M4 as good as I do, the boy is dead on accurate with the 9mm, my wife can handle all, but is not a true gun lover, so she would go for the 12 gauge shotgun.

I have a concealed carry permit, I carry the .45, with 2 mags on me at basically all times. Even at home, it is usually within arms reach. All my guns except the .45 and my M4 are in the gun safe. My M4 is in a very easily accessible location for me with 2 loaded 30 round mags. Now this is not recommended but my youngest is 19 and they all grew up shooting. All stayed locked in the gun safe when they were little. It would take all of 30 seconds for me to open the gun safe.

My situation is much different than most. That is why I say get a 12 gauge pump shotgun for a home defense gun. I have been trained to do house clearing and have done house clearing in live. Now as to your step on a cat etc, the more noise you the home owner makes, the more apt the bad guy is to run away. Criminals are cowards at heart. At least here in the US they are, we own guns.

And all my weapons stay on safe until I am ready to pull the trigger. Once you train to do it, it takes a millisecond to do it.

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: Gunhawk
I'm not sure what your point is here, but if you invade someones home you certainly *do* risk your life as it only makes sense to assume a worst case scenario, and it's legal to shoot someone invading your home. Nothing circular about that.

Notice how, for "legal to shoot someone invading your home" it must be assumed that, in the given country, it is legal to own weapons for self-protection. But still...

No burglar is going to carry an assault rifle for protection. That's just plain ridiculous.

A person who has been shot in the chest by 12 gauge 00 Buckshot or .45 caliber jacketed hollow point round is *not* going to be able to return fire "just fine". And, of course, you *are* going to shoot the invader more than once. I'm trained to "double tap" every time.

...The two dangerous assumptions somehow I never see tackled are right here.

The first one is that usually the homeowner expects that the intruder will - for some reason - follow a script. The intruder will never be prepared for the eventuality that the homeowner is armed; he will always recognize his duty to die and offer the chest so to go down in a glorious blaze; he will never be more proficient with weapons than the homeowner; he will never pack more firepower than the homeowner; there will never be two intruders; it will never happen that only an intruder makes noise and at that point the second one remains quiet so to surprise the homeowner; and so on.

The second - and most dangerous - assumption is that the homeowner will follow his own script without fault. He will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; the intruder will never walk on the cat's tail in the dark; generally speaking, there will never be a sudden noise/unexpected shadow that will make the homeowner jump and fire prematurely; he will never keep his finger on the guard instead than on the trigger; he will always keep the correct pose and the gun barrel will never smash against his nose after the first shot; there will never be a skateboard left by the son in the dark; he will always either kill or critically wound the intruder before he reacts - and never just graze him; and so on.

And all the above will be done right/go the right way the first time it is done, without rehearsals, in a tense situation, usually at night and in the dark, after having just been woken up.

Special Ops and SWAT teams train over, and over, and over so that "everything goes according to a script". It is their job, and they, too, occasionally see things go pear shaped. But in our minds it will never happen to us.

Frankly, it only takes a First Person Shooter to see how things can go wrong when you realize that you have five seconds to assimilate everything in a sudden situation, and then the same five seconds to develop a plan, press the correct keys, aim right and be sure that you did everything correctly. This even if while reading the manual or doing the tutorial everything is as clear as the sun. Add that in RL you don't even have a single save to rely on. Frankly, given the basics, I'd rather pork with a taser than with a .45.

BTW, while reading our little scenario, did you remember to remove the safety? [;)]

All you're saying here is that there are people that aren't trained well enough, and/or haven't practiced enough to be as effective as they can be in a home invasion situation, and I agree. As I said in a previous post, I believe that everyone that's within a reasonable distance from a firing range with regular IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) matches should go and learn to handle their main firearm under timed stress conditions. My local range offers matches that also include practical shotgun and occasionally practical carbine scenarios. You start as a Novice and then if you want to you can be tested to be classified from Marksman through Master, but you never have to test out of any classification, including Novice, if you don't want to, and you only compete against others in your classification, so newcomers won't be out shot every time. The important thing to know is that scenarios are set up so that you'll be in different situations each time you start the scenario, so you must expect the unexpected. You might have to re-load in the middle of the situation, or only fire with your weak hand, or fire against three different targets, or there might be an innocent bystander in the scenario, etc, so you increase your weapon familiarization which will eventually become second nature and you also condition yourself to react to varying situations. I don't think when I pull my weapon. It's carried cocked and locked. As I aquire my target I am already putting my finger on the trigger and unlocking the hammer with my thumb. I use my peripheral vision and keep myself in the best cover that I can. I can hit a man quickly and easily with my .45 at 50 feet which is a much further distance than I would ever have to deal with in a home invasion, but be advised, if you haven't practiced with your weapon you won't be able to do that. I promise you.

Gunhawk, I agree with you that people really should practice firing their guns. I too have attended a course similar to what you describe. But no citizen should be required to do anything except not steal their guns.[;)]

We can never pass enough laws to make all citizens safe and banish all accidents. Those things will happen regardless - hence the occasional heartbreaking story of a veteran police officer whose child or other relative accidentally kills themselves with said officers service weapon.

ORIGINAL: parusski

Gunhawk, I agree with you that people really should practice firing their guns. I too have attended a course similar to what you describe. But no citizen should be required to do anything except not steal their guns.[;)]

We can never pass enough laws to make all citizens safe and banish all accidents. Those things will happen regardless - hence the occasional heartbreaking story of a veteran police officer whose child or other relative accidentally kills themselves with said officers service weapon.

I never said that anyone should be "required" to either attend a course or join an organization like the IDPA. What I *am* saying is that if you don't practice and familiarize yourself with your weapon you're liable to shoot yourself in the foot! That seems counterproductive to me. [:)]

If the media is any guide to the matter, home-invasion is becoming much more common in the USA. So, a gun may become something of a necessity for defending ones castle. However, let us consider some words of warning.

Most people are auto-programmed not to shoot another human. If you intend to actually use the thing, do what the military does with trainees. Find yourself some torsos, preferably pop-ups, and practice until you pull the trigger without hesitation. I realize that this may increase the risk of shooting an innocent party, but it greatly decreases the possibility that you'll choke-up and end up getting killed with your own weapon.

Illegal drugs are responsible for all this, BTW.

PoE..you are correct about it being drugs..there is a soltuion but it's to radical and will never happen..only Holland has some sense on the matter..