You watch too many movies. Lol

The government doesn't care about killing someone slowly, you just can't do it quickly.

lung cancer is a bitch. its a terrible way to go. :helpme

I live in a pretty nice neighborhood actually and what I described isn't a 365 day 24/7 problem, but it's a big problem.

The punk of which I speak has in fact been caught several times, but his family keeps bailing his worthless ass out. And with the court backlog being what it is, it's always a year or more before shitheads like him are finally incarcerated for their second or third offense (the first offenses never seem to count).

Then.. by the time that whole charade plays out, you have a carbon copy, or three, of the same piece-of-shit roaming the same fucking neighborhoods.

It's a never ending cycle.

Were it not for the thieve's fear of eating a bullet, the whole situation would be a hundred times worse and homeowners insurance would be literally unobtainable.

Then again, maybe things are different in California ;)

not for me, I would be very hesitant to shoot someone holding my kid... I don't practice shooting everyday and it wouldn't be like a tv show

Smoking cigarettes kills those people who choose to smoke them. Same thing with alcohol. Sorry, but your analogies are fucking retarded. How are you gonna kill someone with a cigarette, flick it in their bed while they're sleeping?

The abuse of firearms kills other people - most recently a shitload of little kids - who never do anything to opt into that abusive and destructive behavior.

Other differences could follow, but that one alone is so profound that there isn?t enough left of your analogy to proceed in any serious fashion.

someone came into my place in the middle of the night and I didn't pull my gun out... but I did confront the guy and make them leave. there is a time and place for gun and nothing else will do the job. just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they will pull it out and wave it around. there seems to be a lot of random chatter by people not even involved in the situation.

how about this: the government make you give up your mustang because people are getting killed in fast cars? then a bunch of dipshits on porn forum get busy bashing America and fast cars while a bunch or other dipshits that have never even driven a fucking car suddenly know all about it?

think about it. second hand smoke can you understand that???? :helpme abuse of firearms go's back to their family issues. go back and read about the shooters.

And it will continue to be a never ending cycle as long as drug addiction is treated as a criminal issue instead of a public health issue.

Just hope that it ain't your kids one day.

Speaking as someone whom has had his car & house broken into I can say in neither situation would a gun have served any purpose. The reason? I wasn't home.

I didn't live in a bad area but my house was somewhat isolated, meaning I had woods on 4 sides and while there were houses around they weren't close enough for someone to notice anything.

A gun would'n't have stopped my home/car from getting broken into, but better lighting and a alarm likely would have.

Most thieves will avoid the chance of confrontation as they are just looking for a quick score in most cases and will almost always attempt to steal only if there is no one around.

In my case I was a likely target because at the time I had a floor cleaning business and was gone most nights. The people that broke into my house knew this as they knew my schedule.

This is the case in most situations despiste what your average wanna be Rambo loves to shout about. 99% of the time they already know you aren't home if they are targeting your house.

The point being the whole non sense about needing an AK47 or M16 to safe guard ones house is pretty much major over reaction. Home invasions are very very rare when someone is at home. A shotgun or a handgun is more than enough to protect one's home, the whole non sense about assault rifles is just a bunch of wanna be rambos that want to play giJoe..

The shotgun is likely the "BEST" by far because it's unlikely to kill one of your family members in an adjacent room or neighbors next door, due to bullet penetration. In fact I'd go as far as saying for the above mention reason of bullet penetration anyone whom uses the excuse of needing an assault rifle for home protection is a careless and irresponsible gun owner.

I just wanted to add about what I said above..

I can also say something about bullet penetration from experience. When I was a kid we heard a dog whaling in the woods behind our house and my parents and neighbor thought a gator might of gotten a hold of it. My step father and neighbor decided to go check it out, but the neighbor wanted to get his gun.

He was apparently in a hustle to get his rifle and while getting it managed to have the gun go off. The bullet from his gun went though his window into our kitchen window and lodged it's self in our wall. This wasn't even an assault rifle just a hunting rifle and it being shot inside his house managed to enter ours next door.

Just for this reason alone I will always look at anyone whom claims they need anything more than a shotgun or pistol for home defense as a irresponsible gun owner. Even a pistol is problematic, in the area of bullet penetration.

my house has been robbed twice this year. where did I go wrong?

your not street smart :2 cents:

1 get some dogs
2. cameras mounted (hidden from view)
3. stop hitting those clubs with the hoodrats :1orglaugh your not a thug playa

Well, you got a link in your sig that says third world girls, so that kind of says it all, doesn't it?

I mean, seriously, you've been robbed twice in one year and I've never robbed at all in forty-four years?

Buy a dog. In fact, buy three of them. Then get an alarm system.

If I was robbed twice in the same year, I would move quickly.

Excellent points. It's not just removing the wounded, there is also the care involved.

The Military rule of thumb is 10 men are needed to support each troop in the field. It requires 20 to support each wounded soldier. But friendly fire constitutes close to 1/3 of all casualties in War. Pat Tillman's unfortunate death was not an anomaly.

The AR15 / M16 is hardly accurate in any hands other than an experts. An expert would much rather have a Kalishnikov, or for longer distances, a Barrett. The high volume magazines are the only real plus to the .556 ammo. Allows the troops to lay down a lot of fire, although 70 rounds is the standard issue for a combat infantryman.

As for the person with the AR1911? Get a 9MM. I was so glad when the Army switched over 27 years ago, and I was issued a decent piece.


But frankly, discussing a Guns accuracy and value is missing the point.

It's not Guns that are an issue. It is the lack of controls around WHO has one.

A lot of that blows back on irresponsible gun owners. Other than these mass shooters looking to kill as many people as possible before they commit suicide-by-cop, most criminals carry stolen guns. That's so the gun cannot be traced back to them. Where do you think they get them? They steal them or buy a stolen one. Duhhhhhhh.

I'm in total agreement with people who propose elimination of public ownership of Assault Weapons, requirements for Safety Training, an Eye Exam, Psychiatric Certification and periodic re-certification. Not to mention requiring a Gun Lock be sold with each firearm. I do all that certification for my car, and always keep it locked. I'll be happy to do it for my M12.

Bingo. Instead we hand out firearms to anyone who wants one and then don't bother to track them at all.