Leaderboard

I don't know how I feel about it. I mean the scum bag needs to die, Injust wish there was a way to stop it from turning him into a martry. Maybe hang him while he chokes on bacon, then bury him at sea stuffed in a pig carcass with the ceremony being performed by a Christian minster from a KJV bible. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/28/nidal-hasan-sentenced-death-military-jury/ Tapatalk ate my spelling.

It's amazing how many people in this thread have incorporated "Fret anxiously over possible legal outcome of using deadly force to protect myself from imminent fear of grievous bodily injury or death" into their OODA Loop.  There's something wrong with this picture.

My only hope is that in the long run the poor girl remembers neither the assault nor seeing what her father did. Both could leave painful scars on her psyche. Nonetheless, kudos to the grand jury for refusing to return an indictment. Scum like Flores don't deserve to be breathing the same air as decent folks.

The true question is why would anyone buy anything besides a Glock?

God bless our men and women in service to our country.

The article makes it sound as if he didn't mean to kill him...I know what my intent would have been in a similar situation. I cannot understand how some people are capable of the things they do to children but at least this is one less pos alive.

I just read a story on Infowhores that cites a Reuters poll which puts approval of military intervention at just 9% of the US population. This is in contrast to a 90% approval for the invasion of Astan and 76% approval for the invasion of Iraq. Yet Bush is the big war monger.

There is absolutely nothing that I value above the lives of my family that I'm supposed to protect. When somebody forces entry into my home they are assumed to be there to do them harm. I don't have the luxury of giving the criminal the benefit of the doubt. He lost that when he forced entry. The locked door was his warning. No lawsuit, fear of conviction or any other superfluous reason will trump my duty to protect my family. I won't gamble on their lives by giving an intruder the opportunity to disable or kill me, thus leaving them unprotected and at the mercy of a sociopath. If other folks are cool with that, then by all means, worry about civil suits. I'll worry about keeping my family alive.

I know I'm not the only one on TGO that's already shaking and pumped up for opening day of deer season. I've been seeing deer everywhere and my heart starts thumpin like I'm sittin in the woods getting ready to let and arrow rip! 

Okay, the thread title is a little tongue in cheek but not entirely.  It seems that some scientists are claiming to have found a way for one person to control another person's body by linking the two individual's brains via a computer.  They are calling it a 'mind meld'.  I call it 'seeds of the zombie apocalypse'.   http://now.msn.com/human-mind-control-could-be-soon-a-reality?ocid=ansnowex   Sure, it might seem a little far fetched, now but think of the potential, future applications - both good and bad.   Need to send people in to a dangerous environment (say an accident site with high radiation levels) where a robot may not have the manual dexterity to take care of the task?  Well, take corpses, install things like pacemakers and other 'life support' type equipment to keep their circulatory system functioning, lungs working and so on (keeping their bodies technically 'alive' even though the person is dead) wire their brain for wireless Internet access, strap a camera to their head and allow a living expert to control the body remotely so that only the remotely-controlled corpse is actually exposed to danger.   Of course, the military potential of such a capability would be obvious - as well as the possiblity that an increasingly militarized police force could make use of it.   Or maybe even go the full-on cyborg route.  Use the corpses of recently deceased donors, integrate the aforementioned 'life support' equipment along with the equipment needed to interface with the brain into an armored, cybernetic 'suit' and you'll have an unfeeling, uncaring, unthinking zombie 'Terminator' (or Robocop) that can be remotely controlled by anyone with the right equipment.  Heck, someone with the right training might be able to control two or three at the same time.   Now think if terrorists or similarly unbalanced people got ahold of that technology.   Like I said, a bit far fetched but it is an interesting mental/imaginative exercise to think about the potential for advances in such technology in the future.

                                                     http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3003661/posts     This dude doesn't have it.

Thanks.... I need to go clean myself now.

So let me see if I got this right. Some dude decides to put porn all over his gun and starts engraving, then puts a pretty cool boy girl pic on one side and then decides he needs a pic of some dude spankin it on the other side?? Then he makes the handle a pecker??WTF???    I wonder if it has ever gone off half cocked??

It's a snubby!!  :rofl:

Nope Pincus doesn't at all. Your statements draw me to a different conclusion. Maybe I am misreading your words, but the portions I have bolded read to me as an endorsement of a duty to retreat. Considering that the legal threshold for use of deadly force is the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, to say that the opportunity/ability for retreat or the ability to provide the opportunity for the criminal to retreat means that one's "life isn't really in danger" would therefore impart a duty to retreat on the victim. The danger to life exists from the moment the criminal begins their act of violence, not when the victim has no ability to flee.

I guess it's ok on one side, in a truck mud flap kinda way. But why a dude whippin' off on the other side???

  Let me quote the cop. "Get back to me when you get out of attorney school". Where are the charges?

There is a massive difference between someone who is attempting to gain entrance and someone who has. It would make sense to give warning when they haven't yet made entry since they still don't have the ability to do you or your family harm yet, and the primary goal is protecting your family. If you can prevent them from entering in the first place then success has been achieved. Once they are in the house there is nothing separating them from hurting me or my family. In the house all bets are off. In the house any intruder is a clear and present threat to your life and the lives of the people you are responsible for protecting. The point here is the difference between a present threat and a future threat. Someone who is attempting to gain access is not a present threat. They may become one in short order though. If you can prevent that from happening with nonviolence then great. A clear and present threat is a different story. I can't imagine putting the life of the threat, potential prosecution or potential civil liability over the lives of my kids. Those are some pretty screwed up priorities.

  Maybe but do you think the grip angle would change every time a pretty girl walked by?  Talk about printing!

I'm not a father so I can't even imagine what that would be like but I can't blame the father at all.

  Your right, it's an automatic assumption that if someone forces their way into your home that you are in fear for your life, it's pretty much a permit to shoot first ask questions later scenerio and if I were a betting man, i would bet the farm most all Tennessee DA's will see it that way, maybe not some New York DA but they have no say in Tennessee. Even though most thugs are stupid I believe they are at least smart enough to know if they break through a locked door with the residents at home they may have to kill one or all of them and most don't care. They are the ones at fault if they get themselves killed, I or anyone else have no legal or moral duty or responsibility to run and hide in our own home, they are fully responsible for whatever happens. That one or two seconds it takes to "warn" them are valuble seconds, seconds that may give them time to shoot you, i'm not wasting those seconds. My life and the life of family members are far more valuble to me than the thugs life, if he/she didn't want to die that day then they shouldn't have forced their way into your home. I don't want that to happen but if it did some day I believe I will find a way to live with my decision.

  All the more reason to carry on your person while at home. That puts you in complete control of the firearm and in doing so, you can keep a round chambered.

[quote name="confidence" post="1022141" timestamp="1377576467"] Not sure what I think about this Pincus video: I think for me it would be more like this: 1. If there is time, the family would barricade in the safe room without me 2. I would positively identify the target as a BG (especially important at night) and then pull the trigger I know it would likely not be that cut and dried as there could be other complexities, but I'm not sure I agree with his version, including the idea of verbally warning the BG that you have a gun.[/quote] I have kids to protect. Any apprehension on my part to eliminate the threat puts their lives at risk, especially due to my floor plan. Anyone who illegally enters my home does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and anyone who risks their lives by giving an intruder the benefit of the doubt is being foolish. The benefit of the doubt ends at the locked door or window they came through. The locked door was their warning.

We've spilled more than enough blood and spent too much treasure in the middle east with no end in sight.  Let 'em kill each other off; the Israelis will finish 'em if they get too rowdy.   leroy, radical isolationist libertarian

I can't wait. I didn't get to do much hunting at all last year, so I will need to make up for it this year :) Bowhunting is my favorite method, and it's almost time to let the air out of some deer.

Ha. I was thinking Thermacell when I read the title. Great product. I would also say Hot Hands hand warmers when the weather turns cold (I throw one in each boot also)

I believe the dose was from the night before. I think the whole story is BS. I believe there was an argument between the two over this guy being a leechy POS and a slob in which he lashed out by shooting the victim 5 times in the back. Yes, he had to pull that trigger 5 times aimed at this person's back. The whole story is crap. He murdered him with all the intent to murder. He should be sitting on death row. The jury should be ashamed of themselves that they saw being high as a defense to murder. Absolutely ridiculous.

Carlos Danger is awesome. I tried to change my Xbox name to that but it got taken fast :(

  They upgraded to the expensive troll spray. :)

  Gotta agree with Robert here. Some seem to have this fantasy going on where the bad guy doesn't shoot back. Or doesn't have a partner. Or flying bullets don't hit targets they weren't intended to.   Look, if you're hunting for ears to nail to your bedpost, more power to you. If you're looking to survive another day to provide for your family, you might want to be more realistic about how things can play out.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/08/nidal-hasan-granted-terminal-leave/ I fucking LOVE the Duffleblog.

Good. I feel all old Testament about this.   And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.  

  We all have our lines in the sand.  Mine is at the door to my home.  I am not running away from a threat of lethal violence inside my own home.  Instead, I will take whatever action necessary to stop the threat.  If the sight of me with a shotgun does that without me having to fire the shotgun then that is great.  If not then I will take further action.  If I 'give ground' within my home it will only be to reach a better position from which to defend myself and my home.  I will not choose to retreat inside my home.  The law does not require it, morality does not require it and I will not do it.

I won't get in to a religious argument online, as that leads to bad blood. But its not a myth, and to call it that is incredibly insulting to Christians who believe in it. It is a theory, just as evolution is a theory. Thats all I'll say on that, as I dont wanna lose friends on here. Tapatalk ate my spelling.

May I ask why not?   I've found that lots of times, a compressed load coincides with the best choice of powder for a given cartridge. It also prevents overcharging a cartridge by accident.   Also, I've never fired anything other than a compressed load from a shotgun or muzzleloader. I can't imagine it being a problem in a rifle, as long as it is a tested load published in a mainstream reloading manual.

"and in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night"

That does kinda spoil it.  :lol:

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1022814" timestamp="1377707998"] If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground then your life isn't [i]really[/i] in danger - it may be only a moment [i]from[/i] crossing that "line" but it's still not quite there yet; if it were then it wouldn't be possible for either to disengage safely. There is nothing "moral" about using deadly force against someone if you don't have to do so...there is nothing heroic or "right" about "standing your ground" if you can give ground safely and defuse the situation. Obviously, if you can't do so safely then you can't and I've not said otherwise or suggesting otherwise. The absolutely very best gunfight you can possibly have for you...for your loved ones...for innocents who may be nearby...[b][i]is the one you were able to avoid.[/i][/b][/quote]You sound as if you are approving of imposing a duty to retreat on the victim. You say that there nothing moral about using deadly force against someone you don't have to, I would say that there is nothing immoral about using that deadly force against someone who is engaging in an immoral act. When the criminal chose to engage in their criminal act, they made their choice and must live (or die) with the consequences of that choice. Much like my job as a manager, if I have to terminate an employee it is due to their actions. I didn't fire them, they fired themselves. Whenever a criminal ends up dead due to the victim engaging in self defense, regardless of whether or not the victim could have avoided the gunfight, they bear no moral responsibility for the criminal's demise. It is nothing more than the criminal committing suicide by poor victim selection.

That's a darn good point and bringing the gun to midline to take advantage of larger muscle groups definitely takes the gun "out of the box" where you should be operating.

It was a temp! My regular guy quit on me :(   I am pretty proud of that plate rack run. I think if I had "reset" my position in relation to the rack I would have got my mojo rising again.

I just wonder if they smell like bacon. Wouldn't THAT be confusing when Allah was sorting through all of it? :)

"The only gunfight you ever "WIN" is the one you avoid" (someone else). It all depends on the exact circumstances you are facing, and those factors can be numerous, but if I can talk my way out of a defensive gun use, I'll try to do so. Think of that bookkeeper in the Georgia school recently who talked down a moron who came to kill a bunch of kids .... but didn't.

I would always "warn" if I have a safe opportunity to do so...why wouldn't I??? I not armed just so I can shoot someone, especially if it can be avoided; if the home invader (or the thug in any given situation) can be warned and he decides to make an intelligent decision to disengage then so much the better. This is right in line with most every other training I've had including Massad Ayoob.

Cleaning his gun my a$$. He was playing with his new gun. Dumba$$ should have known he could have put someone's eye out.

I'll tell them to get out of my house if I feel it's appropriate for the situation. Pulling the trigger is last resort for me

I get sick and tired of the world standing and pointing at crap like this, turning to us and saying " DO SOMETHING...Don't just stand there."...let the other freeloading countries spend their money and shed their blood if they are so concerned. And another thing is this. These people and most of the middle east hate our guts and protest us in the streets and would kill Americans on sight given half a chance. Why get involved at all? We need to cut all aide to these people, use the money to develop our own oil reserves and make ourselves self reliant on oil and stay out of all Muslim countries is my line of thinking.

I met with sonny this morning and tried out his(now mine) sig 516. I liked the gun and it felt comfortable. It shoots great. Now to decide on optics.

Since you started in Nashville, I'd recommend you head east.  There's plenty of small towns and plenty of land (small farms) for sale.  Personally, the further east you go, the better it gets.    TN, the patron state of shootin' stuff.  Generally discharge of a firearm is illegal within city limits, though I don't expect you'll have to worry about that.  Lots of public and some private ranges do not permit full auto fire or .50 BMG.  That's definitely something to check on.    The decent internet connection may cause some difficulty if you're really out in the sticks.  High speed broadband access is growing, but there's still lots of places where it's not available.  And the fact that you have to get it from the cable company make it worse.  Satellite internet is an option.