rickjump1 0 #26 October 10, 2009 If your husband is just a little smaller than this guy, looks like an "animal tazer" might be the answer. Of course you gotta have a back up plan and good batteries. http://www.guzer.com/videos/bull_taser.phpDo your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 October 10, 2009 Owch!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #28 October 10, 2009 I didn't say that the Taser was a bad choice, just that people need to understand how it does and doesn't work if they're going to bet their life on it. Having deployed a taser a few times, I promise you its a great tool, but people need to understand its limitations.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #29 October 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am not a Grossman fan per say, I think he is an ass. His book "On Killing" covers some valid observations and historical information but if you took the meat of that book it would be about 2-3 chapters, the rest is crap IMO. He is very selective about what things he cites from sources (not that you're going to put something in your book that doesn't support your argument). This selectiveness leads to misrepresentation of what some of these people like S.L.A. Marshall were actually saying. I don't know whether he's an ass or not, but he's a sloppy historian. Zach Thats part of my reason for not really giving him or his book as much credit as others do. If you google him I bet you can find a video of him speaking at an event. I find his speeches to be on par with his writing. Imagine someone writing a book on skydiving and that person had never actually been skydiving, but relied on others information as a foundation of the book and then throws in some psycho babble for the remaining chapters. That's pretty much my view on his book. Although, his referencing other studies proves insightful, if you go back and reference the actual studies, most of which are well known and have helped shape the way we train today."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #30 October 12, 2009 Thanks for your comments on this. I think a 9 mm is adequate, but a 45 is better for stopping power. A 9mm is probably easier to shoot, with a larger magazine capacity. I've wondered about the M-16 for years, in terms of stopping power. Particularly with full-metal-jacketed bullets. It just doesn't seem to be a very ideal weapon for stopping someone. I watched a show on TV recently where they were firing a 223 into gelatin. The uptake on this was that the 223 was a good round because the bullet often tumbled, blowing a bigger hole. Is that really true? I've heard many veterans complain about it's stopping power. Who knows weapons better than someone who has used that gun in combat.... I read one news story where a policeman was hit through the chest with an a 223 round. It was a full metal jacket bullet. At the hospital they put a big bandaid on the entrance and exit wound, and sent him home..... As far as weapon noise, I think the loudest gun I own is my 9 mm pistol. But then again my 357 isn't any better. I have to have ear phones or plugs to even shoot them. But in a home defense situation, I doubt if the noise would bother anyone. The adrenaline would be pumping and noise wouldn't bother you much. But what do I know? I've never been in that situation. Shooting in a confined area can make things worse. I know one ex-Vietnam tunnel rat who is almost deaf. That was from firing his 12 guage in confined quarters. Thanks for the info. on Grossman. I don't think he did have any combat experience, so his knowledge is probably limited, and parts of his book could be B.S..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #31 October 12, 2009 Apparently a .38 can be quite effective. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #32 October 12, 2009 I bought both my daughters 38's. Both those pistols are shorter barreled revolvers. They have been shooting and hunting since they were little. So, I feel safe with them owning and shooting these. One of those pistols is pretty accurate. The other has fixed sights. It groups a little to one side and the groups are quite large, no matter how steady you hold it. I might buy her a different one. I've never owned a short barreled pistol. I was impressed with the accuracy of the one and not the other. I don't think I'll buy another pistol with fixed sights... Both these pistols were made in South America. They look like Smith and Wesson. The inaccurate one is a Taurus. I bought a Taurus 22 long rifle in a little longer barrel, and it is very accurate. I really like it. I'm not sure what is wrong with this 38. You can tell a lot about a cartridge by looking at the round itself. There is a lot of powder behind a 38 bullet. A lot more than my little 9mm.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,523 #33 October 13, 2009 QuoteYou can tell a lot about a cartridge by looking at the round itself. There is a lot of powder behind a 38 bullet. A lot more than my little 9mm.... Not really. The .38 spl is a leftover from the blackpowder days (actually a descendant of a leftover). Powder was a lot bulkier back then, and cases had to be bigger. Check out loading data for both (performance data too) and you'll see that the 9 and 38 are pretty similar."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yoink 321 #34 October 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I am not a Grossman fan per say, I think he is an ass. His book "On Killing" covers some valid observations and historical information but if you took the meat of that book it would be about 2-3 chapters, the rest is crap IMO. He is very selective about what things he cites from sources (not that you're going to put something in your book that doesn't support your argument). This selectiveness leads to misrepresentation of what some of these people like S.L.A. Marshall were actually saying. I don't know whether he's an ass or not, but he's a sloppy historian. Zach Thats part of my reason for not really giving him or his book as much credit as others do. If you google him I bet you can find a video of him speaking at an event. I find his speeches to be on par with his writing. Imagine someone writing a book on skydiving and that person had never actually been skydiving, but relied on others information as a foundation of the book and then throws in some psycho babble for the remaining chapters. That's pretty much my view on his book. Although, his referencing other studies proves insightful, if you go back and reference the actual studies, most of which are well known and have helped shape the way we train today. That's a perfectly valid research route and makes up 80% of academia! Of course it doesn't help if the conclusions are erroneous or the writer has their own agenda. That's all I wanted to point out. The rest of this thread terrifies me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MrDree 0 #35 October 13, 2009 QuoteHe went on to say that everyone fears military weapons like the M-16, but in actuality the M-16 is more for wounding folks than killing them. He went on to say that anyone can take an old shotgun and saw off the barrel, and end up with a weapon that is much more deadly at close range. [....] I am a big believer in a short shotgun for home defense.....In my mind it may very well be the best weapon for that. So you're saying that the deadlier the better? You're talking about defending your home, or about exercising your right to kill someone "legally" when the opportunity presents itself? If a guy breaks into your home to steal some booze, knocking him unconscious with a baseball bat should do the trick, don't you think? No need to blow his brains out... Oh wait a second, I think I can see where you're going: what if the guy has a gun? Well, I guess that if he has a gun, it's because of the same wonderful system that allows you to have one. Enjoy equality and justice for all! That's great, one of you will end up dead, and the other will be a murderer... God bless the NRA! Sometimes I'm so glad to live on this side of the pond..."One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #36 October 13, 2009 How are you supposed to tell if someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night is looking for booze? Do you ask them? If they weren't, how well do you think that'd work out? It's rational to assume that someone that just broke into your home intends to do you harm, and it's rational to respond accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MrDree 0 #37 October 13, 2009 So when in doubt, you kill him first and ask questions later? If someone breaks into my home, I assume that he wants to steal from me. Why in the hell would someone want to kill me? Sometimes you need to relax and stop being so paranoid..."One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #38 October 13, 2009 Quote So when in doubt, you kill him first and ask questions later? If someone breaks into my home, I assume that he wants to steal from me. Why in the hell would someone want to kill me? Sometimes you need to relax and stop being so paranoid... ...................................................................... Do you have another pair of rose glasses that I can wear too? I'll bet everyone who breaks into your house in the middle of the night is really a nice guy who's just had a little too much to drink or maybe he just needs some stuff..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #39 October 13, 2009 QuoteSo when in doubt, you kill him first and ask questions later? Yes. If you break into my house I don't care your intent. You are the lowest risk to my loved ones and myself if you are dead. If you don't want a huge hole in your chest don't break into my house."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #40 October 13, 2009 QuoteIf a guy breaks into your home to steal some booze, knocking him unconscious with a baseball bat should do the trick, don't you think? Only if you are a ninja and can sneak up on the guy without him noticing. Otherwise baseball bats are incredibly easy to defend against and you may just find yourself in a wrestling match with a felon who has two strikes, may or may not be armed, and nothing to lose by causing you great harm. Personally I don't buy into the "shoot first ask questions later" attitude either. I would more likely find a defensable position, announce my presence and that I well armed and prepared to defend myself and call the cops. BUT that depends on the circumstances.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MrDree 0 #41 October 13, 2009 Quote I'll bet everyone who breaks into your house in the middle of the night is really a nice guy who's just had a little too much to drink or maybe he just needs some stuff..... Seriously, why would anyone break into your house in the middle of the night to kill you? Do you know a lot of people that want you dead? Are you a gang member or something? Maybe a CIA agent? Or is there a serial killer on a killing spree in your neighbourhood?"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #42 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou can tell a lot about a cartridge by looking at the round itself. There is a lot of powder behind a 38 bullet. A lot more than my little 9mm.... Not really. The .38 spl is a leftover from the blackpowder days (actually a descendant of a leftover). Powder was a lot bulkier back then, and cases had to be bigger. Check out loading data for both (performance data too) and you'll see that the 9 and 38 are pretty similar. ................................................................... Thanks for the info. on this. I haven't really checked the ballistics out very closely...and that explains my stupid thoughts on this. I assumed that a larger case meant greater velocity. Usually that is the case when looking at a rifle cartridge. To tell you the truth I know much more about rifles than I do pistols. If you compare a 308 to a 30/06 to a 300 magnum, there is room for more powder resulting in faster velocity, in the larger cases. With primitive powders there probably was a need for a larger case.....So, I stand corrected on this....Are their any other cartridges that this applies to. Does the 357 have a longer case than needed? It is much longer than a 38 special.....This has my curiosity going..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #43 October 13, 2009 Quote Seriously, why would anyone break into your house in the middle of the night to kill you? Do you know a lot of people that want you dead? Are you a gang member or something? Maybe a CIA agent? Or is there a serial killer on a killing spree in your neighbourhood? You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if a person is breaking into your house to assisinate you, or if they were just looking for a TV to fund their crack addiction. They already broke into your house, therefore you can reasonably assume that if they will break into a house, they could also cause a loved one serious harm. Please feel free to great any intruders in your own home with milk and cookies if you are so inclined. I heard crack heads will leave your daughter alone if you give them puppies and sunshine. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MrDree 0 #44 October 13, 2009 QuoteIf you don't want a huge hole in your chest don't break into my house. I rest my case."One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #45 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you don't want a huge hole in your chest don't break into my house. I rest my case. You have no case. Stay the fuck out of my house."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MrDree 0 #46 October 13, 2009 QuoteIt doesn't matter if a person is breaking into your house to assisinate you, or if they were just looking for a TV to fund their crack addiction. They already broke into your house, therefore you can reasonably assume that if they will break into a house, they could also cause a loved one serious harm. So trespassing should be punished by death penalty? Isn't there some kind of alternative between the gun shot to the head and the cookies?"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #47 October 13, 2009 The alternative is for people not to break into my home and put me in a position where I must make the reasonable assumption that they are capable of causing serious harm to my loved ones. I have never shot anyone that didn't break into my house. My shot gun has never run a cop style sting where it enticed people the break into my house. Are you seeing the trend here?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yoink 321 #48 October 13, 2009 Your argument assumes black and white. If someone is in your house then they intend you or your family harm. I've no doubt that you won't be shifted from this position. I much prefer the hiding / calling the police option and letting them take the bloody TV rather than becoming a murderer based upon an assumption. That's why it's insured, after all. The point is that shooting someone should be a last resort, not a first one. What the hell is 'a reasonable assumption' and does your definition of one meet everyone elses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DougH 270 #49 October 13, 2009 QuoteYour argument assumes black and white. If someone is in your house then they intend you or your family harm. I've no doubt that you won't be shifted from this position. I much prefer the hiding / calling the police option and letting them take the bloody TV rather than becoming a murderer based upon an assumption. That's why it's insured, after all. The point is that shooting someone should be a last resort, not a first one. I figure that my alarm system would send most right back out the way they came in. That doesn't change the fact that they could pose a serious risk to your loved ones. I don't care about my stuff, stuff is stuff. But it isn't far fetched that some one with enough lack of concern for the law to break into a private residence could also commit more heinous acts. True or false, a home invader that could steal your TV also has the physical capacity to hurt your 6 year old daughter?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yoink 321 #50 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour argument assumes black and white. If someone is in your house then they intend you or your family harm. I've no doubt that you won't be shifted from this position. I much prefer the hiding / calling the police option and letting them take the bloody TV rather than becoming a murderer based upon an assumption. That's why it's insured, after all. The point is that shooting someone should be a last resort, not a first one. I figure that my alarm system would send most right back out the way they came in. That doesn't change the fact that they could pose a serious risk to your loved ones. I don't care about my stuff, stuff is stuff. But it isn't far fetched that some one with enough lack of concern for the law to break into a private residence could also commit more heinous acts. True or false, a home invader that could steal your TV also has the physical capacity to hurt your 6 year old daughter? True. BUT, you've been posting like your first action upon finding someone in your house would be to whip out a cannon, slap on some war paint and quite happily hunt them down and kill them. It's the attitude that scares me more than anything... I have to admit, I don't like everybody being armed to the teeth, but if you have to own a gun, I believe you have to take every reasonable step to prevent yourself murdering someone based on a series of false assumptions - as much for your sanity as anything else! ;) Again though, I may be nieve, but I buy into the 'prevention is better than cure' philosophy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
steve1 5 #30 October 12, 2009 Thanks for your comments on this. I think a 9 mm is adequate, but a 45 is better for stopping power. A 9mm is probably easier to shoot, with a larger magazine capacity. I've wondered about the M-16 for years, in terms of stopping power. Particularly with full-metal-jacketed bullets. It just doesn't seem to be a very ideal weapon for stopping someone. I watched a show on TV recently where they were firing a 223 into gelatin. The uptake on this was that the 223 was a good round because the bullet often tumbled, blowing a bigger hole. Is that really true? I've heard many veterans complain about it's stopping power. Who knows weapons better than someone who has used that gun in combat.... I read one news story where a policeman was hit through the chest with an a 223 round. It was a full metal jacket bullet. At the hospital they put a big bandaid on the entrance and exit wound, and sent him home..... As far as weapon noise, I think the loudest gun I own is my 9 mm pistol. But then again my 357 isn't any better. I have to have ear phones or plugs to even shoot them. But in a home defense situation, I doubt if the noise would bother anyone. The adrenaline would be pumping and noise wouldn't bother you much. But what do I know? I've never been in that situation. Shooting in a confined area can make things worse. I know one ex-Vietnam tunnel rat who is almost deaf. That was from firing his 12 guage in confined quarters. Thanks for the info. on Grossman. I don't think he did have any combat experience, so his knowledge is probably limited, and parts of his book could be B.S..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #31 October 12, 2009 Apparently a .38 can be quite effective. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #32 October 12, 2009 I bought both my daughters 38's. Both those pistols are shorter barreled revolvers. They have been shooting and hunting since they were little. So, I feel safe with them owning and shooting these. One of those pistols is pretty accurate. The other has fixed sights. It groups a little to one side and the groups are quite large, no matter how steady you hold it. I might buy her a different one. I've never owned a short barreled pistol. I was impressed with the accuracy of the one and not the other. I don't think I'll buy another pistol with fixed sights... Both these pistols were made in South America. They look like Smith and Wesson. The inaccurate one is a Taurus. I bought a Taurus 22 long rifle in a little longer barrel, and it is very accurate. I really like it. I'm not sure what is wrong with this 38. You can tell a lot about a cartridge by looking at the round itself. There is a lot of powder behind a 38 bullet. A lot more than my little 9mm.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #33 October 13, 2009 QuoteYou can tell a lot about a cartridge by looking at the round itself. There is a lot of powder behind a 38 bullet. A lot more than my little 9mm.... Not really. The .38 spl is a leftover from the blackpowder days (actually a descendant of a leftover). Powder was a lot bulkier back then, and cases had to be bigger. Check out loading data for both (performance data too) and you'll see that the 9 and 38 are pretty similar."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #34 October 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I am not a Grossman fan per say, I think he is an ass. His book "On Killing" covers some valid observations and historical information but if you took the meat of that book it would be about 2-3 chapters, the rest is crap IMO. He is very selective about what things he cites from sources (not that you're going to put something in your book that doesn't support your argument). This selectiveness leads to misrepresentation of what some of these people like S.L.A. Marshall were actually saying. I don't know whether he's an ass or not, but he's a sloppy historian. Zach Thats part of my reason for not really giving him or his book as much credit as others do. If you google him I bet you can find a video of him speaking at an event. I find his speeches to be on par with his writing. Imagine someone writing a book on skydiving and that person had never actually been skydiving, but relied on others information as a foundation of the book and then throws in some psycho babble for the remaining chapters. That's pretty much my view on his book. Although, his referencing other studies proves insightful, if you go back and reference the actual studies, most of which are well known and have helped shape the way we train today. That's a perfectly valid research route and makes up 80% of academia! Of course it doesn't help if the conclusions are erroneous or the writer has their own agenda. That's all I wanted to point out. The rest of this thread terrifies me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #35 October 13, 2009 QuoteHe went on to say that everyone fears military weapons like the M-16, but in actuality the M-16 is more for wounding folks than killing them. He went on to say that anyone can take an old shotgun and saw off the barrel, and end up with a weapon that is much more deadly at close range. [....] I am a big believer in a short shotgun for home defense.....In my mind it may very well be the best weapon for that. So you're saying that the deadlier the better? You're talking about defending your home, or about exercising your right to kill someone "legally" when the opportunity presents itself? If a guy breaks into your home to steal some booze, knocking him unconscious with a baseball bat should do the trick, don't you think? No need to blow his brains out... Oh wait a second, I think I can see where you're going: what if the guy has a gun? Well, I guess that if he has a gun, it's because of the same wonderful system that allows you to have one. Enjoy equality and justice for all! That's great, one of you will end up dead, and the other will be a murderer... God bless the NRA! Sometimes I'm so glad to live on this side of the pond..."One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #36 October 13, 2009 How are you supposed to tell if someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night is looking for booze? Do you ask them? If they weren't, how well do you think that'd work out? It's rational to assume that someone that just broke into your home intends to do you harm, and it's rational to respond accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #37 October 13, 2009 So when in doubt, you kill him first and ask questions later? If someone breaks into my home, I assume that he wants to steal from me. Why in the hell would someone want to kill me? Sometimes you need to relax and stop being so paranoid..."One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #38 October 13, 2009 Quote So when in doubt, you kill him first and ask questions later? If someone breaks into my home, I assume that he wants to steal from me. Why in the hell would someone want to kill me? Sometimes you need to relax and stop being so paranoid... ...................................................................... Do you have another pair of rose glasses that I can wear too? I'll bet everyone who breaks into your house in the middle of the night is really a nice guy who's just had a little too much to drink or maybe he just needs some stuff..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #39 October 13, 2009 QuoteSo when in doubt, you kill him first and ask questions later? Yes. If you break into my house I don't care your intent. You are the lowest risk to my loved ones and myself if you are dead. If you don't want a huge hole in your chest don't break into my house."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #40 October 13, 2009 QuoteIf a guy breaks into your home to steal some booze, knocking him unconscious with a baseball bat should do the trick, don't you think? Only if you are a ninja and can sneak up on the guy without him noticing. Otherwise baseball bats are incredibly easy to defend against and you may just find yourself in a wrestling match with a felon who has two strikes, may or may not be armed, and nothing to lose by causing you great harm. Personally I don't buy into the "shoot first ask questions later" attitude either. I would more likely find a defensable position, announce my presence and that I well armed and prepared to defend myself and call the cops. BUT that depends on the circumstances.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #41 October 13, 2009 Quote I'll bet everyone who breaks into your house in the middle of the night is really a nice guy who's just had a little too much to drink or maybe he just needs some stuff..... Seriously, why would anyone break into your house in the middle of the night to kill you? Do you know a lot of people that want you dead? Are you a gang member or something? Maybe a CIA agent? Or is there a serial killer on a killing spree in your neighbourhood?"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #42 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou can tell a lot about a cartridge by looking at the round itself. There is a lot of powder behind a 38 bullet. A lot more than my little 9mm.... Not really. The .38 spl is a leftover from the blackpowder days (actually a descendant of a leftover). Powder was a lot bulkier back then, and cases had to be bigger. Check out loading data for both (performance data too) and you'll see that the 9 and 38 are pretty similar. ................................................................... Thanks for the info. on this. I haven't really checked the ballistics out very closely...and that explains my stupid thoughts on this. I assumed that a larger case meant greater velocity. Usually that is the case when looking at a rifle cartridge. To tell you the truth I know much more about rifles than I do pistols. If you compare a 308 to a 30/06 to a 300 magnum, there is room for more powder resulting in faster velocity, in the larger cases. With primitive powders there probably was a need for a larger case.....So, I stand corrected on this....Are their any other cartridges that this applies to. Does the 357 have a longer case than needed? It is much longer than a 38 special.....This has my curiosity going..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #43 October 13, 2009 Quote Seriously, why would anyone break into your house in the middle of the night to kill you? Do you know a lot of people that want you dead? Are you a gang member or something? Maybe a CIA agent? Or is there a serial killer on a killing spree in your neighbourhood? You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if a person is breaking into your house to assisinate you, or if they were just looking for a TV to fund their crack addiction. They already broke into your house, therefore you can reasonably assume that if they will break into a house, they could also cause a loved one serious harm. Please feel free to great any intruders in your own home with milk and cookies if you are so inclined. I heard crack heads will leave your daughter alone if you give them puppies and sunshine. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #44 October 13, 2009 QuoteIf you don't want a huge hole in your chest don't break into my house. I rest my case."One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #45 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you don't want a huge hole in your chest don't break into my house. I rest my case. You have no case. Stay the fuck out of my house."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #46 October 13, 2009 QuoteIt doesn't matter if a person is breaking into your house to assisinate you, or if they were just looking for a TV to fund their crack addiction. They already broke into your house, therefore you can reasonably assume that if they will break into a house, they could also cause a loved one serious harm. So trespassing should be punished by death penalty? Isn't there some kind of alternative between the gun shot to the head and the cookies?"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #47 October 13, 2009 The alternative is for people not to break into my home and put me in a position where I must make the reasonable assumption that they are capable of causing serious harm to my loved ones. I have never shot anyone that didn't break into my house. My shot gun has never run a cop style sting where it enticed people the break into my house. Are you seeing the trend here?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #48 October 13, 2009 Your argument assumes black and white. If someone is in your house then they intend you or your family harm. I've no doubt that you won't be shifted from this position. I much prefer the hiding / calling the police option and letting them take the bloody TV rather than becoming a murderer based upon an assumption. That's why it's insured, after all. The point is that shooting someone should be a last resort, not a first one. What the hell is 'a reasonable assumption' and does your definition of one meet everyone elses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #49 October 13, 2009 QuoteYour argument assumes black and white. If someone is in your house then they intend you or your family harm. I've no doubt that you won't be shifted from this position. I much prefer the hiding / calling the police option and letting them take the bloody TV rather than becoming a murderer based upon an assumption. That's why it's insured, after all. The point is that shooting someone should be a last resort, not a first one. I figure that my alarm system would send most right back out the way they came in. That doesn't change the fact that they could pose a serious risk to your loved ones. I don't care about my stuff, stuff is stuff. But it isn't far fetched that some one with enough lack of concern for the law to break into a private residence could also commit more heinous acts. True or false, a home invader that could steal your TV also has the physical capacity to hurt your 6 year old daughter?"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #50 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour argument assumes black and white. If someone is in your house then they intend you or your family harm. I've no doubt that you won't be shifted from this position. I much prefer the hiding / calling the police option and letting them take the bloody TV rather than becoming a murderer based upon an assumption. That's why it's insured, after all. The point is that shooting someone should be a last resort, not a first one. I figure that my alarm system would send most right back out the way they came in. That doesn't change the fact that they could pose a serious risk to your loved ones. I don't care about my stuff, stuff is stuff. But it isn't far fetched that some one with enough lack of concern for the law to break into a private residence could also commit more heinous acts. True or false, a home invader that could steal your TV also has the physical capacity to hurt your 6 year old daughter? True. BUT, you've been posting like your first action upon finding someone in your house would be to whip out a cannon, slap on some war paint and quite happily hunt them down and kill them. It's the attitude that scares me more than anything... I have to admit, I don't like everybody being armed to the teeth, but if you have to own a gun, I believe you have to take every reasonable step to prevent yourself murdering someone based on a series of false assumptions - as much for your sanity as anything else! ;) Again though, I may be nieve, but I buy into the 'prevention is better than cure' philosophy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
