Pistols, revolvers, GUNS, oh my!

Blarf · September-05-09, 06:06 AM

If you're not sure about this one, just listen to Ted Nudgent.

cheddar bob · September-05-09, 11:35 AM

Now go see if you can dig up any evidence to support your position. If you can't, then you lose, as usual. Fail.

Still nothing. Lose.

**ejames01** · September-05-09, 11:48 AM

You two should give it a rest. If anyone take gun safety advice from a message board, they deserve to be shot or imprisoned.

PLEASE take at least one serious class before buying a gun or getting a CPL.

Originally Posted by cheddar bob

Still nothing. Lose.

cheddar bob · September-05-09, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by ejames01

You two should give it a rest.

Speaking of not taking advice from a message board...If you don't like me calling him out for never providing evidence of his assertions, don't read it. I'm certainly not going to stop because you said to.

**Detroitej72** · September-05-09, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by cheddar bob

If you don't like me calling him out for never providing evidence of his assertions, don't read it. I'm certainly not going to stop because you said to.

For the record, I find the banter between you two wildly entertaining.

cheddar bob · September-05-09, 04:00 PM

Glad to hear it. Afterall, my goal is to entertain. And if it makes sstashmoo feel stupid, all the better.

**ejames01** · September-05-09, 05:22 PM

Why would sstahmoo feel stupid? His opinions are considered facts.

Originally Posted by cheddar bob

Glad to hear it. Afterall, my goal is to entertain. And if it makes sstashmoo feel stupid, all the better.

**ejames01** · September-05-09, 05:26 PM

We all know he doesn't provide evidence. It is a waste of time to complain about it every day. A decent human being would stop.

Originally Posted by cheddar bob

Speaking of not taking advice from a message board...If you don't like me calling him out for never providing evidence of his assertions, don't read it. I'm certainly not going to stop because you said to.

**Thomcat52** · September-05-09, 07:03 PM

I commend the OP for taking responsibility for her personal safety. Single women, and the elderly are clearly more at risk of being attacked. While I recommend having a firearm, it should be only one of several tools used for protection. Deterrence, and early warning should also be used, such as video monitors, motion lighting, security system, dead bolts, and a pet [[Pit Bull) with signs posted. Having a weapon is great, but useless if taken by surprise. These would be the minimum steps I would recommend regardless of the neighborhood you live in. As far as cops are concerned, the saying 'there's never one around when you need one' is so true. They mostly show up to do the reports. They are tied up busting johns, streetwalkers, and chasing doughnut trucks.
I would also go with the 20 gauge because of the weight and recoil.For the boys, I would go with the Colt M1911 .45 automatic. They are expensive, but you can use it as a hammer, very solid weapon. Pick one up at your next gunshow that comes through town.

**Sstashmoo** · September-05-09, 10:28 PM

Quote: "If you don't like me calling him out for never providing evidence of his assertions, don't read it."

I routinely provide sources to back up my facts. If I had a notarized letter from the President, you'd still spew some nonsense about validity. You were proven wrong on this one Booby. That is why you went into a temporary turtle. Everyone noticed it.

Quote: " And if it makes sstashmoo feel stupid, all the better."

Sstashmoo get's a good laugh out of you and your inveterate research to back up your skewed points.

ccbatson · September-05-09, 11:37 PM

Firearms is a conundrum without a simple solution. Yes, the right to bear arms should be sacrosanct; no, wielding firearms is not a wise method of defending yourself; no, serious gun control is not possible as criminals will benefit and law abiding citizens will be deprived of their rights.

Stosh · September-06-09, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Firearms is a conundrum without a simple solution. Yes, the right to bear arms should be sacrosanct; no, wielding firearms is not a wise method of defending yourself; no, serious gun control is not possible as criminals will benefit and law abiding citizens will be deprived of their rights.

Wow. You must have picked up a thesaurus. Good job.

Lorax · September-06-09, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "If you don't like me calling him out for never providing evidence of his assertions, don't read it."

I routinely provide sources to back up my facts. If I had a notarized letter from the President, you'd still spew some nonsense about validity. You were proven wrong on this one Booby. That is why you went into a temporary turtle. Everyone noticed it.

Quote: " And if it makes sstashmoo feel stupid, all the better."

Sstashmoo get's a good laugh out of you and your inveterate research to back up your skewed points.

Would your notarized letter from the President be considered a legal, binding document? After all, don't your people believe Obama's a Kenyan, without a valid birth certificate, therefore not legally President?

Still waiting for that backup info.......zzzzzzzz.

Lorax · September-06-09, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Enjoy your one dimensional life."

Not dimensions, absolutes. And yes I'm enjoying it, thank you.

Except when it comes to straddling that ol' fence. Or had you forgotten? Naturally I don't believe it.

If I were you, with your views on feminism, I wouldn't act out in a restaurant with a female [[or gay) waitstaff. Guess that leaves out most restaurants.

I wonder how many "special sauces" have made it into your food over the years.

**Sstashmoo** · September-06-09, 10:02 AM

Quote: "I would go with the Colt M1911 .45 automatic."

Not to be argumentative, but the 45 ACP is not all that great of a round. It's a big diameter bullet, but it is really slow. Many stories of them bouncing off stuff instead of penetrating. I bounced a round off of a 55 gal drum once, scared the S outta me. Just missed me on the way back.. And for protection, I really don't like an automatic. I agree with Ray, best protection handgun is a double action revolver preferably S&W or Colt chambered 38 special. Automatics have too many levers, requiring too much of a distraction, and they can jam in a scuffle, or if they get a little debris on the slide etc. Plus the revolver is a little more intimidating to look at the wrong end of, all that lead hanging in the cylinder.

**Sstashmoo** · September-06-09, 10:17 AM

Quote: "Still waiting for that backup info.......zzzzzzzz."

If I have to post a source to confirm common sense, why bother?

cheddar bob · September-06-09, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

I routinely provide sources to back up my facts.

No you don't. You routinely fail to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions, you routinely ignore posted facts to back up other people's assertions and you routinely get beaten up for your stupid ideas. Not just by me, but just about everybody else.

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

That is why you went into a temporary turtle. Everyone noticed it.

If my "temporary turtle" you mean that I haven't posted in a day or so, it's because I haven't been home. Some of us have friends and things to do, but rest assured, I'm still around to call you out for posting bullshit. If "everyone noticed it", then why were you the only one to point it out? Remember the last time you accused me of "turtling"? You didn't back it up with one shred of evidence so instead I posted a whole list of times that someone addressed you and you refused to respond. Remember that? I'll post it again if you forgot.

cheddar bob · September-06-09, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

You were proven wrong on this one Booby.

Why would you think I was "proven wrong"? Because you said so, but failed to post any evidence? If you routinely post links, I guess we can expect you to post a link a story where "...someone was convicted of murder for shooting someone that came into their house [[post 2006) illegally."? How's that evidence coming? I assume that since you "routinely post links", you must be hard at work digging something up. I know you wouldn't "turtle" on this.

I thought there was a no name calling rule here. As Lowell says, if you need to resort to name calling I guess you've run out of ideas. Take your defeat graciously. Don't worry, I don't report people's posts like ccbatson does when someone says something he doesn't like. I find the act of reporting people's posts is cowardly.

**Sstashmoo** · September-06-09, 02:14 PM

You must have missed this post:

""If I have to post a source to confirm common sense, why bother? ""

But anyway, here goes since you are obviously too lazy or not able to find it.

Here is the clarification of the law you are so confused about:

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.Sec. 2.
[[1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
[[a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
[[b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
[[2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Where does it say simply being in your house?

Here is the wrench in your silly assed argument:

780.973 Duty to retreat; effect of act on common law.Sec. 3.
Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force.

As I've been saying over and over, the law is "screwy". You still have a duty to retreat if you are not acting in self defense. The law simply gives the victim the ability to defend themselves in the event of an attack.

Now, if you want to up and shoot someone for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time, take your chances with the prosecutor, go for it. We intelligent folks will handle our firearms in an intelligent manner, not with a story made up to tell the cops beforehand.

FAIL

Anything else to add? [[Oh I'm quite sure of it)

cheddar bob · September-06-09, 02:43 PM

Here is the clarification of the law you are so confused about:

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.Sec. 2

Um, that section is in regards to places other than one's home. Nice try. I already posted the relevant section, which is 780.951 sec. 1. That one deals with people's homes. Why would you try to post the [[wrong) section? Trying to pull a fast one thinking that I wouldn't notice? Didn't notice yourself that it was the wrong section?

Where does it say simply being in your house?

Um, try the relevant section...780.951 sec. 1. I'll highlight the pertinent parts [[again)...

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
Sec. 1.
[[1) Except as provided in subsection [[2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:
[[a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
[[b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision [[a).

Why can't you understand that if someone is in your house, they are committing home invasion? Is this too difficult for anyone else to understand, or is it just sstashmoo?

Have you found someone convicted of murder yet, or are you still looking?

**Sstashmoo** · September-06-09, 03:03 PM

Quote: "Why can't you understand that if someone is in your house, they are committing home invasion? Is this too difficult for anyone else to understand, or is it just sstashmoo?"

Why are you so convinced that if someone is simply in your home, you have the right to use deadly force?

Quote: "Um, that section is in regards to places other than one's home."

All intelligent people start sentences with "Um".

No, it isn't. It's clarification of the law you keep posting that you obviously know nothing about. You keep posting just the part you want to read that bolsters your error. Read the clarification that I posted. Pay close attention to the chronological order of the law number. Yours-951 Mine-972. It's a clarification.

cheddar bob · September-06-09, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Why are you so convinced that if someone is simply in your home, you have the right to use deadly force?

For the gazillionth time, if someone is in your home without your permission, they are committing "Home Invasion". Home invasion is explicitly worded into the law.

No, it isn't. It's clarification of the law you keep posting that you obviously know nothing about. You keep posting just the part you want to read that bolsters your error. Read the clarification that I posted. Pay close attention to the chronological order of the law number. Yours-951 Mine-972. It's a clarification.

No, it isn't "clarification". It's two seperate things. What I posted deals homes and businesses. What you posted deals with other places, whether it's a public place or any place else that is not your building.

Notice that both sections are from the same bill passed in 2006. Why would they need to "clarify" something that was passed in the same bill? That's just stupid. The answer is they are not clarifying anything, it's two seperate and distinct situations that are outlined. Sorry that you can't seem to comprehend that, or you just don't want to admit that you're wrong.

**Sstashmoo** · September-06-09, 05:17 PM

You read it the way you want and I'll read it the way it is.

cheddar bob · September-06-09, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

You read it the way you want and I'll read it the way it is.

Translation: "I can't come up with a good reason why the legislature would need to write a whole section to 'clarify' a previous section that they had just written in the same bill. Cheddar Bob, you win".

BTW, how's the search coming? Did you find a case where someone was charged with murder for killing someone in their own home since 2006 in Michigan? Or are you just ignoring the subject, or "turtling" as you like to put it?

**Sstashmoo** · September-06-09, 06:26 PM

Your method of argument is get on one silly tangent and wring it out for all it's worth.

The reality is there are situations and conditions that do not align with your claim. The law isn't as clear and concise as you've elected to understand. Hell, according to you, you can shoot someone outside your window and just tell the cops, the person was trying to break in. And the person had no intention of doing so. What your saying is, your word is all it will take to clear you. Nonsense.

Again, read it the way you want and I'll read it the way it is.