What will you do when the rioters arrive in YOUR neighborhood?

[slim 1,530]

whether you like it or not, cleo, America is still full of guys with big guns.

we still stand between you and your government to guarrantee that the rights you take for granted today are here tomorrow.

it's what the second amendment is all about. duck hunting has nothing to do with it.

Spot-on! When willl you folks realize that without being Armed, your vote is merely a suggestion?

In general though whether actions are considered legal or illegal is dependent on a reasonable use of force. Stabbing someone 30 times in the back as they're on the way out the door with your TV is not reasonable.

It's not legal, that's for sure. Reasonable? I believe if criminals knew they'd get stabbed in the back 30 times on their way out of someone's house then they'd stop stealing TVs and probably just about everything else that's not theirs. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Surrounding your property with claymore mines goes pretty far beyond what most people would consider a reasonable self-defence.

Very true... but it would be highly effective at breaking up a riot!

Short of society breaking down entirely (Mad Max style) - I'm not sure I understand this desire to stay and fight to defend "stuff" if you have the opportunity to get your family out of harm's way. Surely in extreme situations - the safety of you and yours should be the ultimate priority. Granted that it isn't always possible - but I don't think the US is at a point where there is the sort of rampant lawlessness where armed gangs roam the suburbs looking for people to rob, rape and kill. I think that's (just a little) hysterical.

Of course it's hysterical when you're from the suburbs. Armed gangs don't roam the streets looking for people to rob, rape and kill in the suburbs. And just what do you think a riot is? "A societal break down" pretty much sums it up. When there's rampant lawlessness in YOUR neighborhood, why is it your duty, as a law-abiding citizen to flee the mob instead of standing your ground? Why have we lost our Right to be secure in our person, property and home?

Slim seems to be of the belief that its unfortunate that we've somehow suppressed our inner barbarian and that presumably things would be better if people were prepared to take violent action at a moments notice. When that student went nutso at Virginia Tech and started blasting away with pistols, he made a claim about how the body count wouldn't have been as high had the people involved fought for their lives to stop the guy.

Not to be insensitive, but that just proves my posts above how one man, with rapid and accurate fire, can stop a crowd from violent action.

Umm .... let's be a little careful with the above paintbrush ... ok?

In '76 there were already BPCR

There are lots of people still shooting these old rifles and even modern reproductions at silhouette matches (targets smaller than "man sized") with extreme accuracy (note: many people do not use optics on their rifles)

The single shot rifles used by the 7th didn't really help them out, did they? Nor would they be of much help (although I'd take them over nothing) in a riot situation. However, my response above was made in reference to another poster saying "how many people have the equivalent of a (circa 1876) Gatling gun in their home today?" I realize the Sharps and others were wonderful firearms. However, there was really no match for a mob of people until after about, oh, 1894?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Of course it's hysterical when you're from the suburbs. Armed gangs don't roam the streets looking for people to rob, rape and kill in the suburbs.

Actually, in the "suburbs" PD and I live in, societal breakdown and rioting would not be out of character. They've happened before, in other "suburbs" around us a few decades ago. Entire communities were destroyed over the course of a year, turned into an enduring blight that persists to this day.

Oh and in case you're wondering, the reason I put "suburbs" in quotes is because we live in a densely populated part of Jersey where a "suburb" isn't quite it is in say, Texas. But we call them "suburbs" nevertheless.

[slim 1,530]

Entire communities were destroyed over the course of a year, turned into an enduring blight that persists to this day.

Just imagine what those suburbs would've been like today if only law-abiding Americans had vaporized every rioter that threatened their neighborhood.

Jersey might actually be a nice place to visit!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Entire communities were destroyed over the course of a year, turned into an enduring blight that persists to this day.

Just imagine what those suburbs would've been like today if only law-abiding Americans had vaporized every rioter that threatened their neighborhood.

Jersey might actually be a nice place to visit!

All you have to do is stay away from those towns. What I'm saying is there's no reason (well, no good reason) to believe my town or PD's town is immune just because it hasn't happened here yet. If it happened in the towns next door, it can happen here.

[slim 1,530]

Now we're talking. See America, even YOU can have a riot!

[Alex+R 0]

Now we're talking. See America, even YOU can have a riot!

[natty bumppo 297]

The single shot rifles used by the 7th didn't really help them out, did they? Nor would they be of much help (although I'd take them over nothing) in a riot situation. However, my response above was made in reference to another poster saying "how many people have the equivalent of a (circa 1876) Gatling gun in their home today?" I realize the Sharps and others were wonderful firearms. However, there was really no match for a mob of people until after about, oh, 1894?

a few well placed shots do wonders compared to a whole lot of shots that simply make noise.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not legal, that's for sure. Reasonable? I believe if criminals knew they'd get stabbed in the back 30 times on their way out of someone's house then they'd stop stealing TVs and probably just about everything else that's not theirs. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yeah - but by that reasoning the death penalty would put an end to murder. Unfortunately it isn't quite that simple.

Of course it's hysterical when you're from the suburbs. Armed gangs don't roam the streets looking for people to rob, rape and kill in the suburbs. And just what do you think a riot is? "A societal break down" pretty much sums it up. When there's rampant lawlessness in YOUR neighborhood, why is it your duty, as a law-abiding citizen to flee the mob instead of standing your ground? Why have we lost our Right to be secure in our person, property and home?

Um... because you don't want to die? Why is it you think you are obligated to put yourself and your family in mortal danger just to satisfy some abstract sense of duty.

On the bolded I don't think we have. Its an assertion you keep making as though it is somehow assumed to be the case - I don't see the how/why of that...

Slim seems to be of the belief that its unfortunate that we've somehow suppressed our inner barbarian and that presumably things would be better if people were prepared to take violent action at a moments notice. When that student went nutso at Virginia Tech and started blasting away with pistols, he made a claim about how the body count wouldn't have been as high had the people involved fought for their lives to stop the guy.

Not to be insensitive, but that just proves my posts above how one man, with rapid and accurate fire, can stop a crowd from violent action.

It proves nothing. Noone predicted what happened in Virginia Tech, least of all the victims (just as you wouldn't expect a guy to show up at your door with a flamethrower.

And that sort of rampage crime isn't so prevalent that people need to take extreme precautions, live in fear - and assume that there is a rapist in every alleyway or a burglar for every house.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Entire communities were destroyed over the course of a year, turned into an enduring blight that persists to this day.

Just imagine what those suburbs would've been like today if only law-abiding Americans had vaporized every rioter that threatened their neighborhood.

Jersey might actually be a nice place to visit!

that's just silly talk!

[Amby 490]

if the rioters come today, i will puke on them

[slim 1,530]

a few well placed shots do wonders compared to a whole lot of shots that simply make noise.

True. But, MANY well placed shots will do a lot more than make noise! And lets face it, if you have the choice of firing into an oncoming crowd with your Sharps or your AR, which one are you going to choose? Remember, the rioters are in YOUR neighborhood. There may be some rioters way out there, but wouldn't you shoot the ones up close first?

Yeah - but by that reasoning the death penalty would put an end to murder. Unfortunately it isn't quite that simple.

The reason the death penalty doesn't stop murder is because it's not instantaneous and it's not an immediate threat. In all likelihood, the probability of the death penalty being imposed on anyone for anything, even murder is very, very minute. If we had a legal system that held up the right of a homeowner to kill anyone commiting a crime against them or their property, crime would be significantly reduced and the effects would be immediate.

Um... because you don't want to die? Why is it you think you are obligated to put yourself and your family in mortal danger just to satisfy some abstract sense of duty.

On the bolded I don't think we have. Its an assertion you keep making as though it is somehow assumed to be the case - I don't see the how/why of that...

Why would I die if rioters came to my neighborhood? I already provided evidence that I believe I (and my family, home, etc.) would be just fine. However, it's not a sense of duty that makes me feel obligated to do so, it's a sense of upholding the law and being able to provide a sense of stability. "Well Slim, shooting people is not stable." You're right about that. But, neither is being in a mob and taking part in lawless action.

Why is it wrong to shoot people participating in criminal activity? Why do criminals have more of a right to victimize law-abiding citizens than I do to shoot them?

It proves nothing. Noone predicted what happened in Virginia Tech, least of all the victims (just as you wouldn't expect a guy to show up at your door with a flamethrower.

They might not have predicted it, but why weren't they legally afforded the Right to protect themselves against it?

And that sort of rampage crime isn't so prevalent that people need to take extreme precautions, live in fear - and assume that there is a rapist in every alleyway or a burglar for every house.

So prevalence sets the precedence on "how well prepared" we can be to protect ourselves from being victimized by criminals? I don't assume everyone is a criminal or rapist or burglar. But, I do know that I have absolutely ZERO fear of them because I am prepared to take action if and when they decide to try to victimize me.

What really irks me about Americans today is they'd rather be unprepared and live under the illusion of "safety" than make preparations to defend themselves.

that's just silly talk!

New Jersey would be a very beautiful place if it wasn't for all the people living there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is it wrong to shoot people participating in criminal activity? Why do criminals have more of a right to victimize law-abiding citizens than I do to shoot them?

Why do you keep saying that? I'm not making that argument. What are you basing it on?

?

If we had a legal system that held up the right of a homeowner to kill anyone commiting a crime against them or their property, crime would be significantly reduced and the effects would be immediate.

A lot of States do.

As to the reduction factor - pure speculation.

They might not have predicted it, but why weren't they legally afforded the Right to protect themselves against it?

They did. You need to read up on Virginia's gun laws. They have CHP.

I do know that I have absolutely ZERO fear of them because I am prepared to take action if and when they decide to try to victimize me.

What really irks me about Americans today is they'd rather be unprepared and live under the illusion of "safety" than make preparations to defend themselves.

And the only way to do this is to possess and carry a loaded gun? Whatever happened to basic common sense? You don't need a weapon to take precautions for your own safety.

[Peikko 1,575]

a few well placed shots do wonders compared to a whole lot of shots that simply make noise.

True. But, MANY well placed shots will do a lot more than make noise! And lets face it, if you have the choice of firing into an oncoming crowd with your Sharps or your AR, which one are you going to choose? Remember, the rioters are in YOUR neighborhood. There may be some rioters way out there, but wouldn't you shoot the ones up close first?

Yeah - but by that reasoning the death penalty would put an end to murder. Unfortunately it isn't quite that simple.

The reason the death penalty doesn't stop murder is because it's not instantaneous and it's not an immediate threat. In all likelihood, the probability of the death penalty being imposed on anyone for anything, even murder is very, very minute. If we had a legal system that held up the right of a homeowner to kill anyone commiting a crime against them or their property, crime would be significantly reduced and the effects would be immediate.

Um... because you don't want to die? Why is it you think you are obligated to put yourself and your family in mortal danger just to satisfy some abstract sense of duty.

On the bolded I don't think we have. Its an assertion you keep making as though it is somehow assumed to be the case - I don't see the how/why of that...

Why would I die if rioters came to my neighborhood? I already provided evidence that I believe I (and my family, home, etc.) would be just fine. However, it's not a sense of duty that makes me feel obligated to do so, it's a sense of upholding the law and being able to provide a sense of stability. "Well Slim, shooting people is not stable." You're right about that. But, neither is being in a mob and taking part in lawless action.

Why is it wrong to shoot people participating in criminal activity? Why do criminals have more of a right to victimize law-abiding citizens than I do to shoot them?

It proves nothing. Noone predicted what happened in Virginia Tech, least of all the victims (just as you wouldn't expect a guy to show up at your door with a flamethrower.

They might not have predicted it, but why weren't they legally afforded the Right to protect themselves against it?

And that sort of rampage crime isn't so prevalent that people need to take extreme precautions, live in fear - and assume that there is a rapist in every alleyway or a burglar for every house.

So prevalence sets the precedence on "how well prepared" we can be to protect ourselves from being victimized by criminals? I don't assume everyone is a criminal or rapist or burglar. But, I do know that I have absolutely ZERO fear of them because I am prepared to take action if and when they decide to try to victimize me.

What really irks me about Americans today is they'd rather be unprepared and live under the illusion of "safety" than make preparations to defend themselves.

that's just silly talk!

New Jersey would be a very beautiful place if it wasn't for all the people living there.

As this whole thread is essentally a 'what if' scenario, I don't think anyone has actually made the 'it's wrong to shoot them' argument as regards what one should do faced with an angry mob. What has been argued, to a lesser or greater degree of seriousness, is whether standing and fighting for a specific set of material goods/property or executing a strategic exit is the most sensible course of action.

The rules for this scenario are not very clear, for example the degree to which the 'angry mob' might be armed themselves which really makes the 'standing and fighting' strategy less than sound, in my opinion but I digress.

What I entirely fail to understand is why 'standing and fighting' is associated with being 'brave and American' which, it apparently does given how staunchly the advocates of this strategy seem to be in its defense. I would have thought such sentiments were completely irrelevant. Either you survive and your strategy is deemed successful, or you die and it's not. Fortunately, or sadly (whichever way you look at it) there is no accurate way of predicting who is right.

I am however somewhat wary of people who declare themselves prepared 'not to be victimized' by criminals as if somehow there is a fool proof way of preventing this eventuality and those who do become victims have only themselves to blame and that such preparations fall within reasonable behaviour given that the statistical chances of one being in these situations is incredibly small, no matter what the media would have one believe.

It's also rather presumptuous to declare oneself fearless as regards facing a situation one has absolutely no familiarity with. The average person simply does not know -although often we are surprised just how sensible and resilient these people are when terrifying ordeals present themselves.

[Amby 490]

so projectile vomit onto the rioters isn't an option?

[Peikko 1,575]

so projectile vomit onto the rioters isn't an option?

I don't see why not, so long as it's patriotic vomit - make sure you eat a good selection of red, white and blue items et voila!