A warning to those in Phoenix Hill, Irish Hill, NULU, and Bu

Hey guys.
I haven't read all five pages. The first one kind of struck me, and I want to put in my 2 cents worth. You all know how much that is worth.
I'm sorry you guys up there are having to go thru this kind of thing. Thankfully in five years I've only had one thing stolen from me here in Etown. It was a kiddo riding toy (big jeep). I let it be known in my neighborhood (because it was found torn up down a big hill behind my house, so I suspectted teenagers riding it) that I would shoot anyone in the ASS with pellet salt if I saw them in my yard at any time.

As far as the quote

Burglars are often drug addicts; I don't think they deserve death sentences for that "offense." They just want some quick cash. Get insurance for your valuables. Safeguard priceless items (concealed safe or similar work well).

That's unfortuante that they have (or not) drug issues. I'm not going to give my stuff to someone else that I work to buy just because they are a druggie. If they break into my home, I have a right to defend myself and my stuff.

Hey guys.


As far as the quote

Burglars are often drug addicts; I don't think they deserve death sentences for that "offense." They just want some quick cash. Get insurance for your valuables. Safeguard priceless items (concealed safe or similar work well).

That's unfortunate that they have (or not) drug issues. I'm not going to give my stuff to someone else that I work to buy just because they are a druggie. If they break into my home, I have a right to defend myself and my stuff.

You go girl. Right on

Hey guys.


As far as the quote

Burglars are often drug addicts; I don't think they deserve death sentences for that "offense." They just want some quick cash. Get insurance for your valuables. Safeguard priceless items (concealed safe or similar work well).

That's unfortunate that they have (or not) drug issues. I'm not going to give my stuff to someone else that I work to buy just because they are a druggie. If they break into my home, I have a right to defend myself and my stuff.

You go girl. Right on

It's like a whole chorus of people reminding us idiots - the non-gun owners - what their rights are. Good on you! Yes, you have every right to shoot that person if your hard-earned TV means that much to you. That's the beauty of America!

Nimbus was right pages ago. It's simple bloodlust. Or vigilante justice. Why shouldn't the hardworking law-abiding citizen not be legally allowed to blow the brains out of that gosh, darn drug-addicted creep. Doing society a favor, right?

Pretty sure nobody called anyone who chooses to not own a gun an idiot (or anything else, for that matter) - you have your opinion, we have ours. There is no 'bloodlust' or 'vigillanteism' involved - purely self preservation and defense. If it was bloodlust, I'd have signs on my door listing the contents of my home in bright neon letters so someone would break in and I could shoot them or I'd stay up at night on the roof with night vision goggles and a sniper rifle waiting for crime to occur.

(I will admit to using Night vision goggles and a paintball gun on Halloween for a little fun with the teenagers who like to take pumpkins off the porch and smash them in the street tho - I have done that once or twice. I've also boobytrapped the pumpkins with 'paint claymores', but those are tales for another time)

I simply do not have enough faith in criminals to trust that they will just take a few things and leave, leaving me completely unharmed just because I stayed quiet and offered them my stuff. Sure, many robbers would, but I'm not going to take the chance of getting one who doesn't and being injured or killed because I tried to play nice. I'm also not using self-defense training or some other non-lethal option because I don't know anything about the person breaking in - he/she may be better trained than me and I don't want to get close enough to find out. There might also be a person with them that I don't see, and all the martial arts and pepper spray in the world can't stop a bat/crowbar/knife you didn't know was coming at you.

It has zero to do with wanting to kill someone and everything to do with keeping them at a distance and running them off but having the ability to put a quick and decisive end to a situation if things go way wrong. Big difference.

Yes, you have every right to shoot that person if your hard-earned TV means that much to you.

I think this is where the big disconnect is, just because they're breaking in doesn't mean they're going to be satisfied with your(tv/jewelry/other property) or if they're just a nut listening to the voices in their head. Until the situation actually happens you just don't know, and empty supposition is worthless.

Hey guys.

It's like a whole chorus of people reminding us idiots - the non-gun owners - what their rights are. Good on you! Yes, you have every right to shoot that person if your hard-earned TV means that much to you. That's the beauty of America!

I actually have an extra tv. Please let me know who needs it and I will deliver instead of them breaking into my house. Of course I could give it to the Goodwill like I was going to.

Nimbus was right pages ago. It's simple bloodlust. Or vigilante justice. Why shouldn't the hardworking law-abiding citizen not be legally allowed to blow the brains out of that gosh, darn drug-addicted creep. Doing society a favor, right?

And yes I will be glad to do society a favor rather than being a victim.

Yes, you have every right to shoot that person if your hard-earned TV means that much to you.

I think this is where the big disconnect is, just because they're breaking in doesn't mean they're going to be satisfied with your(tv/jewelry/other property) or if they're just a nut listening to the voices in their head. Until the situation actually happens you just don't know, and empty supposition is worthless.

There's data out there. You can believe all the fear rhetoric you want, but, really, the numbers say it is really, really unlikely. I don't think I've ever known a person who was the victim of a home invasion, much less a home invasion that results in violence.

Now I've known people whose houses have robbed while away on vacation. I know people who have had their cars broken into while parked in the driveway. Hell, I knew one person who had their car stolen has they were warming it up in the morning. And then there's my cousin, who shot up his own car as it was being stolen.

But, I've never known a single person - and I didn't grow up in, say, Lake Forest - who came face-to-face with a home intruder, much less get in a violent confrontation with one.

Now, let me hear everyone's stories - anecdotal evidence - to prove me wrong. Your one-in-10,000 case. Your single case that proves all the numbers wrong.

Prepare all you want. As for me, I'm going to go start on that apocalypse bunker. You know, best to be prepared. Anybody have some non-perishables they'd like to donate?

Yeah, I figured my post would be ignored.

Marsha,
Just got back to this thread after three days away from the web (mostly away). That accidental shooting sucks. And there are so many cases like that.

Yeah, I do wonder how effectively a gun can be hidden or safeguarded from crafty kids (my oldest is seven, and he can figure out just about anything) and at the same time remain quickly available for "self-defense" in an instant. Maybe sometimes yes, but there must be some increased risk to the kids also (from accidental death).

Just a couple months or so ago, an 12 year old was shot dead here in town by his brother. They found the mom's boyfriends "hidden" gun. http://www.whas11.com/news/local/14-yea ... 78117.html

The innocent kid dead to "bad guy" dead ratio is simply too high for people like me to stomach.

Guns are frequently used not to fight off "bad-guys" invading the home, but instead against people who live in the home. Crimes of passion (yes, people do argue and fight and get enraged ...some people quite often) can easily be fatal when a gun is readily available. Guns in the house make suicide much much easier. Mistaken identity, and of course accidents involving kids or adults, both provide substantial numbers of gun fatalities that simply would not have occurred if the gun wasn't there in the first place.

Secure entryways (solid doors along with reinforced frames and multiple locks) go a long way toward preventing entry. Add an audible (loud) alarm system, especially to vulnerable windows, and who the heck is going to get through? Probably the fantasy crack head PCP crazed super ninja (and his backup buddy) who are coming to get you and rape your wife and child. That seems to be the fear so many people are living in. I'll pray for ya'll..

Cheers,

(p.s. my 7 year old has had basic gun training with multiple types of guns, and no, I don't have guns in the house. Deadly weapons include knives in the kitchen, an old police billy club, and my two hands and two feet (with knowledge of techniques stored in my brain). I suppose a bunch of tools too. They all leave me feeling quite safe and relaxed. Of course tomorrow morning will find me and my son in Jiu-Jitsu class, just like every Sat morn....Peace!)

p.p.s. I do concur that a shotgun seems like a logical choice if one decides to have a gun at home for self-defense. I've always figured the sound of pumping it alone would scare someone off. (or escalate things as someone pointed out). One could keep an empty shotgun, and if the pumping of it didn't scare the intruder away, use it as a club...heehee,,,, really. And safe! (but still, it might make them pull their weapon, which they had never planned on using until you rose the stakes - really it is a can of worms you open when you add a gun to the mix)

About 12 or 13 years ago there was an "incident" at a then popular Louisville restaurant. ( I won't post the name of the restaurant, it's not relevant anyway since it's no longer in business.) It seems there was a homeless man that wandered the area, and had been living in and wandering the area for years. Everyone knew him, he was a harmless old hobo. This particular restaurant had their beer storage room in the back of the restaurant secured by a simple door and lock which had been busted since anyone could remember. This homeless guy would, every night, enter the beer storage room and take 1 beer. 1 beer. Let me say that again... 1 beer. Then leave. Pretty much everyone knew he was doing it. Despite the single missing beer every morning the owner never bothered to fix the lock on the door. One evening the owner waited for the homeless man to enter the beer room and when he did, he blew him away. Shot him to death. He could have easily fixed the door and have eliminated the problem but "No," he said, "It's the principle of the thing. He was taking my beer."

After reading some of these posts I can conclude that many of you agree with his actions. You assume restaurant owner was within his rights because it was HIS beer, his property. Personally I was saddened and disgusted by the whole mess.

[Robin Garr]

After reading some of these posts I can conclude that many of you agree with his actions. You assume restaurant owner was within his rights because it was HIS beer, his property. Personally I was saddened and disgusted by the whole mess.

Is the owner still in the business, Carla? If so, I'd kind of like to know, so I could avoid any business enterprise he's associated with.

About 12 or 13 years ago there was an "incident" at a then popular Louisville restaurant. ( I won't post the name of the restaurant, it's not relevant anyway since it's no longer in business.) It seems there was a homeless man that wandered the area, and had been living in and wandering the area for years. Everyone knew him, he was a harmless old hobo. This particular restaurant had their beer storage room in the back of the restaurant secured by a simple door and lock which had been busted since anyone could remember. This homeless guy would, every night, enter the beer storage room and take 1 beer. 1 beer. Let me say that again... 1 beer. Then leave. Pretty much everyone knew he was doing it. Despite the single missing beer every morning the owner never bothered to fix the lock on the door. One evening the owner waited for the homeless man to enter the beer room and when he did, he blew him away. Shot him to death. He could have easily fixed the door and have eliminated the problem but "No," he said, "It's the principle of the thing. He was taking my beer."

After reading some of these posts I can conclude that many of you agree with his actions. You assume restaurant owner was within his rights because it was HIS beer, his property. Personally I was saddened and disgusted by the whole mess.

A HARMLESS old man stealing beer is quite different than someone BREAKING INTO my house and threatening my family. Since you don't know many of us personally, I'd say that was a rather unfair "conclusion."

A HARMLESS old man stealing beer is quite different than someone BREAKING INTO my house and threatening my family. Since you don't know many of us personally, I'd say that was a rather unfair "conclusion."

If you were to do a rhetorical analysis of what has been posted here, I don't think Carla's conclusion would be off base. Granted, it's not the only conclusion such analysis would offer, but it may well be one. Saying that a person has to know someone "personally" to conclude anything about the person is both flawed and impractical.

There is always, to be fair, the issue of "the slipperiness of language" such that language will never fully be able to represent what we think or who we are. But, it's the best we have, in terms of communication, and it does hold immense value.

There's also the issue of "fair/honest representation" in regards to internet discussion boards. But, given the "community" aspect of this board - off-lines, real names, etc. - I don't see that being as big of an issue as on other boards. Kudos to Robin for that.

Well then, judging from many of the things those against guns have said, we should all just keep our doors unlocked, and let the criminals wander in, and do/take whatever they want, since they're just harmless and feeding their habit. Go ahead. You first.

I did not mean to offend, I was only offering a conclusion based on what has been said on these boards so far as regards to people's rights. I am not against protecting one's home or family, I certainly will protect mine to the last tooth and nail and I expect others will do the same. What I am opposed to is the "shoot first, ask questions later" point of view.

As far as it being different because it was a homeless old man, my question is why? One might assume he was on some mind altering drugs or had reached the point of desperation where he held nothing in value except his own needs. This is my point, a gun has one final outcome in a situation such as this, someone is going to end up dead. What would I do? Most likely hit someone over the head with my Louisville Slugger. When they wake up they could explain their motives to the police. People have become too infatuated with their guns and what they can do with them.

Is the owner still in the business, Carla? If so, I'd kind of like to know, so I could avoid any business enterprise he's associated with.

No, while the building is still there and it still operates as a restaurant, there is no associations with the former owners. The guilty owner was convicted and is doing time.

Well then, judging from many of the things those against guns have said, we should all just keep our doors unlocked, and let the criminals wander in, and do/take whatever they want, since they're just harmless and feeding their habit. Go ahead. You first.

Robin wouldn't be happy with my response to you, so I'm going to refrain from comment.

[I edited out the mean part]