By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports - Any gun owners on VG?

sapphi_snake said:
Don't own a gun and don't know anyone who does. I don't see why I'd want to own a gun, considering I don't wanna shoot anybody. If someone will ever be after me, I'll buy one.


it's cool that you don't want a gun, obviously you don't want to hurt somebody, but people have them for other reasons

some people like maintaining them, sports rapid fire target shooting, ww1-2 memorabilia collections,farm owners for wild life that kill their livestock

 

@OT taking note on the people in this thread with guns to remind myself who i should and should not trolololol on



Around the Network
Marks said:
brendude13 said:
benao87 said:
brendude13 said:
Xen said:
@Gun owners:
Well. I suppose that we do differ there. Hunting is not something I appreciate, and while shooting is fun, it's only because of its competitive qualities, as any sport is. Plus, shoot an intruder, and you could get in a huge lot of trouble (here, at least). I prefer bats, martial skills, etc (and should you surprise them, you won't really need distance).
For intruders, they are good for intimidation.

I think you should be able to shoot intruders regardless.

If I ever saw myself in another 10 years, stealing from somebody's home, I would gladly let someone shoot me.

There really are some scum in this world who deserve nothing but a bullet to the head, I am very intolerant of criminals these days.

Oh dear.

I personally don't like guns, I find it quite unaesthetic. Don't know,  its just not my cup of tea.

 

Watch Gran Torino, that will rile you up and maybe you could see where I am coming from.

You saying Walt should have killed Tao when he tried to steal his car? haha j/k.

I totally agree you should have the right to kill any thief that enters your home, especially if he threatens you or your family in any way. 

That's a good point you brought up there, Walt shouldn't have killed Tao.

I think before you shoot someone you should judge whether they deserve it or not. Firstly, Tao was breaking into his garage, something which wasn't a part of his house. When he confronted him he cowered and Walt knew he didn't pose any threat. It wouldn't be a common situation either, rarely does an innocent person get forced to carry out crimes.

I know you said "j/k" but it's quite a good point :L

And I fully agree with the second point.



Yes I own a gun, Colt M1991. I only use it for fun at the shooting range, I dont even have a single bullet in the house that would fit the gun, I do have a couple souvenir .50 cal BMGs that a friend in the military got me..

But despite this I still keep it in a biometric gun case just because I do have small children around the house at times.



The law varies from state to state, but where I'm from, before you shoot someone, three things have to be present at the moment you pull the trigger. If any one of them is absent from the situation, you've just gone from self defense, to murder. Those three things:

1.) Ability: The person has to have the ability to cause you harm. A person may want to kill you, but if they don't have the skill or physical ability, you can't shoot them. You're expected to use less lethal means to deal with them. Escape is preferred over taking of a life.

2.) Opportunity: A person may pose a threat to you, but if they have a knife and they're so far away that they can't stab you with it, you can't shoot them. If you're riding by in a car and someone is chasing you with a baseball bat or something, they may have the intent or the physical ability, but they won't have an opportunity. If you can avoid the bodily, you are expected to do so.

3.) Jeopardy: Just because I have a hand gun or because I'm 6'2 tall and I have the ability to beat the life out of you with my bare hands, that doesn't mean you can just shoot me. Yes, I have the ability to cause you harm, and I have the opportunity, but I don't have the intention of causing any physical, life threatening, harm. This is the hardest one to prove and the reason why, even law enforcement officers that shoot someone have to go to court to justify whether they did or did not use unnecessary force, If someone is fleeing, you can't shoot them--even if they're a murderer. The only exception is if you're trying to protect someone from a "Forcible Felony"--being raped, being robbed, or any other circumstance that will cause them serious physical harm.

So, even though a lot of people have weapons in the U.S.A., it's not the wild west. Even pointing a gun at someone is illegal without a legitimate reason. Just having a gun during the commission of a crime is a felony. Youcould be selling drugs or breaking into a house. You don't even have to use the weapon to be charged with possession of it. Before you un-holster a weapon, you have to think about whether or not YOU want to spend a lot of time in Federal prison!

The thing is, if you shoot someone and kill them, you're still alive to tell the circumstances of what happened. A person can be in the right when they kill someone but they can't prove that the person who was shot had ALL THREE factors (Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy). and they can go to prison. That same person can shoot a guy coming at them with a beer bottle. If they can prove to a jury that the person was physically imposing enough to kill them with a beer bottle, had the opportunity to do bodily harm, and they were in reasonable fear of their lives, they can be found innocent. The saying goes: "I'd rather be judged by 12 (aka the jury) than carried by six (aka funeral pall bearers)."



Xen said:
*clicks on thread*
*clicks "back", slooooooooooooowwwwwwwwlllly*

A serious question: Why the hell do you guys need guns?


To make sure the 2nd amendment keeps in shape.

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat
or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there."

-George Orwell

That being said I don't own one, yet. But by the end of the year I hope to have one and possibly a CCL.

 



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
d21lewis said:
The law varies from state to state, but where I'm from, before you shoot someone, three things have to be present at the moment you pull the trigger. If any one of them is absent from the situation, you've just gone from self defense, to murder. Those three things:

1.) Ability: The person has to have the ability to cause you harm. A person may want to kill you, but if they don't have the skill or physical ability, you can't shoot them. You're expected to use less lethal means to deal with them. Escape is preferred over taking of a life.

2.) Opportunity: A person may pose a threat to you, but if they have a knife and they're so far away that they can't stab you with it, you can't shoot them. If you're riding by in a car and someone is chasing you with a baseball bat or something, they may have the intent or the physical ability, but they won't have an opportunity. If you can avoid the bodily, you are expected to do so.

3.) Jeopardy: Just because I have a hand gun or because I'm 6'2 tall and I have the ability to beat the life out of you with my bare hands, that doesn't mean you can just shoot me. Yes, I have the ability to cause you harm, and I have the opportunity, but I don't have the intention of causing any physical, life threatening, harm. This is the hardest one to prove and the reason why, even law enforcement officers that shoot someone have to go to court to justify whether they did or did not use unnecessary force, If someone is fleeing, you can't shoot them--even if they're a murderer. The only exception is if you're trying to protect someone from a "Forcible Felony"--being raped, being robbed, or any other circumstance that will cause them serious physical harm.

So, even though a lot of people have weapons in the U.S.A., it's not the wild west. Even pointing a gun at someone is illegal without a legitimate reason. Just having a gun during the commission of a crime is a felony. Youcould be selling drugs or breaking into a house. You don't even have to use the weapon to be charged with possession of it. Before you un-holster a weapon, you have to think about whether or not YOU want to spend a lot of time in Federal prison!

The thing is, if you shoot someone and kill them, you're still alive to tell the circumstances of what happened. A person can be in the right when they kill someone but they can't prove that the person who was shot had ALL THREE factors (Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy). and they can go to prison. That same person can shoot a guy coming at them with a beer bottle. If they can prove to a jury that the person was physically imposing enough to kill them with a beer bottle, had the opportunity to do bodily harm, and they were in reasonable fear of their lives, they can be found innocent. The saying goes: "I'd rather be judged by 12 (aka the jury) than carried by six (aka funeral pall bearers)."

Thanks! Very informative post. Movies give people the wrong ideea.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

brendude13 said:
Marks said:
brendude13 said:
benao87 said:
brendude13 said:
Xen said:
@Gun owners:
Well. I suppose that we do differ there. Hunting is not something I appreciate, and while shooting is fun, it's only because of its competitive qualities, as any sport is. Plus, shoot an intruder, and you could get in a huge lot of trouble (here, at least). I prefer bats, martial skills, etc (and should you surprise them, you won't really need distance).
For intruders, they are good for intimidation.

I think you should be able to shoot intruders regardless.

If I ever saw myself in another 10 years, stealing from somebody's home, I would gladly let someone shoot me.

There really are some scum in this world who deserve nothing but a bullet to the head, I am very intolerant of criminals these days.

Oh dear.

I personally don't like guns, I find it quite unaesthetic. Don't know,  its just not my cup of tea.

 

Watch Gran Torino, that will rile you up and maybe you could see where I am coming from.

You saying Walt should have killed Tao when he tried to steal his car? haha j/k.

I totally agree you should have the right to kill any thief that enters your home, especially if he threatens you or your family in any way. 

That's a good point you brought up there, Walt shouldn't have killed Tao.

I think before you shoot someone you should judge whether they deserve it or not. Firstly, Tao was breaking into his garage, something which wasn't a part of his house. When he confronted him he cowered and Walt knew he didn't pose any threat. It wouldn't be a common situation either, rarely does an innocent person get forced to carry out crimes.


Yeah that's very true. Walt realized he was just a scared kid and there was really no reason to shoot him. If Tao had been one of the gangsters or something (his cousins) then it would have made more sense to shoot because they likely had guns. 



hey which handgun is better beretta px4 storm or the glock 17



brendude13 said:
benao87 said:
brendude13 said:
Xen said:
@Gun owners:
Well. I suppose that we do differ there. Hunting is not something I appreciate, and while shooting is fun, it's only because of its competitive qualities, as any sport is. Plus, shoot an intruder, and you could get in a huge lot of trouble (here, at least). I prefer bats, martial skills, etc (and should you surprise them, you won't really need distance).
For intruders, they are good for intimidation.

I think you should be able to shoot intruders regardless.

If I ever saw myself in another 10 years, stealing from somebody's home, I would gladly let someone shoot me.

There really are some scum in this world who deserve nothing but a bullet to the head, I am very intolerant of criminals these days.

Oh dear.

I personally don't like guns, I find it quite unaesthetic. Don't know, its just not my cup of tea.

Haha, sounds harsh I know, maybe I should have re-phrased that, but I'm going to stick to my word.

A fair amount of these "scum" will never change, even if they serve a lengthy jail sentence. There are people in this world who just destroy and destroy and make many people's lives a misery, if they break into my house to steal my belongings or attack me, then I would be more than happy to kill them. 

In no way am I a gun nut or a violent person, I just believe strongly in protecting your belongings and most importantly, your life.

Watch Gran Torino, that will rile you up and maybe you could see where I am coming from.

I get your point mate, and the funny thing is that I was picturing Gran Torino scenes in my head while reading this thread. The thing is, when a person states that they would kill a human being, bam my respect towards them vanishes. There ain't no reason at all to end somebodys life. Guns can be used as a dissuasion tool, tho.



d21lewis said:
The law varies from state to state, but where I'm from, before you shoot someone, three things have to be present at the moment you pull the trigger. If any one of them is absent from the situation, you've just gone from self defense, to murder. Those three things:

1.) Ability: The person has to have the ability to cause you harm. A person may want to kill you, but if they don't have the skill or physical ability, you can't shoot them. You're expected to use less lethal means to deal with them. Escape is preferred over taking of a life.

2.) Opportunity: A person may pose a threat to you, but if they have a knife and they're so far away that they can't stab you with it, you can't shoot them. If you're riding by in a car and someone is chasing you with a baseball bat or something, they may have the intent or the physical ability, but they won't have an opportunity. If you can avoid the bodily, you are expected to do so.

3.) Jeopardy: Just because I have a hand gun or because I'm 6'2 tall and I have the ability to beat the life out of you with my bare hands, that doesn't mean you can just shoot me. Yes, I have the ability to cause you harm, and I have the opportunity, but I don't have the intention of causing any physical, life threatening, harm. This is the hardest one to prove and the reason why, even law enforcement officers that shoot someone have to go to court to justify whether they did or did not use unnecessary force, If someone is fleeing, you can't shoot them--even if they're a murderer. The only exception is if you're trying to protect someone from a "Forcible Felony"--being raped, being robbed, or any other circumstance that will cause them serious physical harm.

So, even though a lot of people have weapons in the U.S.A., it's not the wild west. Even pointing a gun at someone is illegal without a legitimate reason. Just having a gun during the commission of a crime is a felony. Youcould be selling drugs or breaking into a house. You don't even have to use the weapon to be charged with possession of it. Before you un-holster a weapon, you have to think about whether or not YOU want to spend a lot of time in Federal prison!

The thing is, if you shoot someone and kill them, you're still alive to tell the circumstances of what happened. A person can be in the right when they kill someone but they can't prove that the person who was shot had ALL THREE factors (Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy). and they can go to prison. That same person can shoot a guy coming at them with a beer bottle. If they can prove to a jury that the person was physically imposing enough to kill them with a beer bottle, had the opportunity to do bodily harm, and they were in reasonable fear of their lives, they can be found innocent. The saying goes: "I'd rather be judged by 12 (aka the jury) than carried by six (aka funeral pall bearers)."

This is good information. Thanks for sharing. I would not want to potentially shoot someone that did not mean to cause any physical harm to me, or my family. from your experience as a cop would I get in trouble for holding someone thats trying to steal from my residence at gun point until police arive?

And that is good information that you should only shoot if they are about to harm you or someone else.