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

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Slim, I firmly believe in the right to own guns, but the notion that they are the most effective self defense in most situations is simply not accurate. People should ultimately be concerned about the safety of their family and whatever precautions they make to ensure their family's safety should be grounded on that premise.

Wow! New sidebar, Steve!

You are right that there should be an integrated family plan for what to do in any emergency, not just a riot. For instance, what is the best evacuation plan, and where does the family meet up in case they are seperated? Protection is good. Having food, water, and medical supplies is good. But, so is the plan to "bug out", while the getting is still good, or when your position becomes untenable.

--Bullwinkle

I remember an incident years ago where an Aunt shot her 5 yr. old nephew to death. It was during the Christmas Season and the Aunt woke up in the middle of the night to the sound of an intruder near the Christmas tree. She yelled for the intruder to identify themselves and when she heard the rustling of the Christmas tree, she fired several shots in that direction, killing her little nephew. Now some will say the Aunt didn't follow correct procedures, but that is my point - not everyone knows how to handle situations like that using a gun but that doesn't hinder some people from buying a gun for personal protection. A gun inside a home is most likely a liability than an asset. Again, I'm all for people having the right to own guns, but the reality is that most often they become liabilities than assets as indicated by the high number of accidental shootings.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[slim 1,530]

Noone is arguing that people shouldn't "prepare" themselves, what I'm objecting to is the idea you seem to be pushing that violence must always be the first and only resort - and that in a riot you should not only be able to blow up hundreds of densely packed people with explosives but expect to get away with it as a reasonable defence.

I'm not pushing that violence be the first or the only resort. What I'm pushing is that in your own neighborhood and specifically in your own home, if your life is disrupted by criminals you should be legally justified to shoot them. Period. A riot indicates that there would be many criminals working in conjunction with each other so more people to shoot would necessitate an increase in firepower. Sure, not many people are going to agree that placing mines around your house to defend against humans is acceptable, but what I'm saying is if you've closed up your house and a group of rioters tries to break in or set fire to your place, why shouldn't you be allowed to shoot them? Why are you obligated to pack up the family and leave?

- because in our society its the role of the judicial system to determine whether actions taken were appropriate and "legal".

Historically speaking, our judicial system has time and again ruled in favor of the rights of those breaking the law over those acting in defense of their own homes.

Slim, I firmly believe in the right to own guns, but the notion that they are the most effective self defense in most situations is simply not accurate. People should ultimately be concerned about the safety of their family and whatever precautions they make to ensure their family's safety should be grounded on that premise.

In the OP the situation is "rioters in YOUR neighborhood." Guns would be the most effective self defense in that situation. I agree with you they're not the most effective in every situation, but in the OP, they are.

My family's safety should be a concern, but so should their Rights. If someone is violating their Rights, why should we, as a family, be obligated to flee as opposed to countering those who violate their Rights?

But, so is the plan to "bug out", while the getting is still good, or when your position becomes untenable.

And this is also what it comes down to. If you have a good position and can "hold out" then you should. You should always do what is right if you're able to do so. But, if you're unable to do so (overwhelmed and outgunned, out of supplies, barriers have broken down, etc.) then you do have to bug out to ensure the safety of yourself and your family. Once again, the point that I'm pushing is you shouldn't be legally obligated to bug out as your first option. It should be your "final action."

I remember an incident years ago where an Aunt shot her 5 yr. old nephew to death......... A gun inside a home is most likely a liability than an asset. Again, I'm all for people having the right to own guns, but the reality is that most often they become liabilities than assets as indicated by the high number of accidental shootings.

So when parents buy a swimming pool and a child "accidentally" drowns, why don't we call for a ban on swimming pools? More kids die in swimming pools than from "accidental" gunshots each year but yet we don't try to ban pools. Why not?

It's accepted that pools are dangerous. That there should be some reasonable level of training (swimming lessons, etc.) and safety (lifeguard, parents, swim partner, floaties for little kids) whenever anyone uses a pool. When not in use, it should be out of reach or closed. (Fenced or locked up.) Access should be denied to the pool unless it's in use and in a safe manner.

We readily accept that as a society and it's something that's so engrained in our persona that we don't need to talk about it. Pools are dangerous. Use caution when around or in them. But yet, with guns, something we also know to be dangerous and require training and safety measures, we blame it on the object and not the people involved when something goes "accidentally" wrong. Why?

And for the record, a moat (kind of like a swimming pool) would be a very effective countermeasure to rioters too! Maybe almost as good as Claymore mines!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Noone is arguing that people shouldn't "prepare" themselves, what I'm objecting to is the idea you seem to be pushing that violence must always be the first and only resort - and that in a riot you should not only be able to blow up hundreds of densely packed people with explosives but expect to get away with it as a reasonable defence.

I'm not pushing that violence be the first or the only resort. What I'm pushing is that in your own neighborhood and specifically in your own home, if your life is disrupted by criminals you should be legally justified to shoot them. Period. A riot indicates that there would be many criminals working in conjunction with each other so more people to shoot would necessitate an increase in firepower. Sure, not many people are going to agree that placing mines around your house to defend against humans is acceptable, but what I'm saying is if you've closed up your house and a group of rioters tries to break in or set fire to your place, why shouldn't you be allowed to shoot them? Why are you obligated to pack up the family and leave?

I must be reading some other thread as that's pretty much what you indicated in your first post here (hence the subsequent disagreement). The point was made early on - that "safety first" would surely require individuals to get their families to safety (as far as is possible). That may involve leaving, it may involve locking and holing yourself up in your house.

What p!$$es me off about this thread is the general concensus is "I'd leave my home and all my possessions behind and let an angry mob of law-breaking people destroy my life." What kind of society have we become? Why would we ever allow people to break the law and break our stuff at the same time?

Noone is saying that you can't and shouldn't defend yourself - but what comes across in your posts is a macho desire to seek out trouble unnecessarily or otherwise put yourself and your family in a position where you'd be required to use deadly force.

- because in our society its the role of the judicial system to determine whether actions taken were appropriate and "legal".

Historically speaking, our judicial system has time and again ruled in favor of the rights of those breaking the law over those acting in defense of their own homes.

Well... Do you have any specific examples in mind that show the courts are specifically biased against homeowners defending themselves?

[zqt3344 21]

Send them to Chicago, and let them live with the messiah Barry O, let him deal with them, he is the change agent that can do anything so let him deal with them!

We are entering a Second Great Depression.

This will be a time of great upheaval. Much sorrow. Much pain.

The large issues of the day will be swept aside, for we will all be concerned, first and foremost, with our own survival.

So, the question must be asked. When the rioters arrive in YOUR neighborhood, what will you do?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Holy Hijack, Batman!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So when parents buy a swimming pool and a child "accidentally" drowns, why don't we call for a ban on swimming pools? More kids die in swimming pools than from "accidental" gunshots each year but yet we don't try to ban pools. Why not?

It's accepted that pools are dangerous. That there should be some reasonable level of training (swimming lessons, etc.) and safety (lifeguard, parents, swim partner, floaties for little kids) whenever anyone uses a pool. When not in use, it should be out of reach or closed. (Fenced or locked up.) Access should be denied to the pool unless it's in use and in a safe manner.

We readily accept that as a society and it's something that's so engrained in our persona that we don't need to talk about it. Pools are dangerous. Use caution when around or in them. But yet, with guns, something we also know to be dangerous and require training and safety measures, we blame it on the object and not the people involved when something goes "accidentally" wrong. Why?

And for the record, a moat (kind of like a swimming pool) would be a very effective countermeasure to rioters too! Maybe almost as good as Claymore mines!

Because guns have a stigma attached - resulting from their singular purpose (to shoot $hit).

The purpose of a pool is not to drown in it...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So when parents buy a swimming pool and a child "accidentally" drowns, why don't we call for a ban on swimming pools? More kids die in swimming pools than from "accidental" gunshots each year but yet we don't try to ban pools. Why not?

It's accepted that pools are dangerous. That there should be some reasonable level of training (swimming lessons, etc.) and safety (lifeguard, parents, swim partner, floaties for little kids) whenever anyone uses a pool. When not in use, it should be out of reach or closed. (Fenced or locked up.) Access should be denied to the pool unless it's in use and in a safe manner.

We readily accept that as a society and it's something that's so engrained in our persona that we don't need to talk about it. Pools are dangerous. Use caution when around or in them. But yet, with guns, something we also know to be dangerous and require training and safety measures, we blame it on the object and not the people involved when something goes "accidentally" wrong. Why?

And for the record, a moat (kind of like a swimming pool) would be a very effective countermeasure to rioters too! Maybe almost as good as Claymore mines!

Because guns have a stigma attached - resulting from their singular purpose (to shoot $hit).

The purpose of a pool is not to drown in it...

Actually a guns singular purpose is to defend liberty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So when parents buy a swimming pool and a child "accidentally" drowns, why don't we call for a ban on swimming pools? More kids die in swimming pools than from "accidental" gunshots each year but yet we don't try to ban pools. Why not?

It's accepted that pools are dangerous. That there should be some reasonable level of training (swimming lessons, etc.) and safety (lifeguard, parents, swim partner, floaties for little kids) whenever anyone uses a pool. When not in use, it should be out of reach or closed. (Fenced or locked up.) Access should be denied to the pool unless it's in use and in a safe manner.

We readily accept that as a society and it's something that's so engrained in our persona that we don't need to talk about it. Pools are dangerous. Use caution when around or in them. But yet, with guns, something we also know to be dangerous and require training and safety measures, we blame it on the object and not the people involved when something goes "accidentally" wrong. Why?

And for the record, a moat (kind of like a swimming pool) would be a very effective countermeasure to rioters too! Maybe almost as good as Claymore mines!

Because guns have a stigma attached - resulting from their singular purpose (to shoot $hit).

The purpose of a pool is not to drown in it...

Actually a guns singular purpose is to defend liberty.

I thought that was the purpose of capes, masks and brightly coloured spandex outfits?

[Peikko 1,575]

Send them to Chicago, and let them live with the messiah Barry O, let him deal with them, he is the change agent that can do anything so let him deal with them!

We are entering a Second Great Depression.

This will be a time of great upheaval. Much sorrow. Much pain.

The large issues of the day will be swept aside, for we will all be concerned, first and foremost, with our own survival.

So, the question must be asked. When the rioters arrive in YOUR neighborhood, what will you do?

Return to sender, address unknown. In case you hadn't noticed, Mr Obama changed address, he doesn't live in Chicago any more

So when parents buy a swimming pool and a child "accidentally" drowns, why don't we call for a ban on swimming pools? More kids die in swimming pools than from "accidental" gunshots each year but yet we don't try to ban pools. Why not?

It's accepted that pools are dangerous. That there should be some reasonable level of training (swimming lessons, etc.) and safety (lifeguard, parents, swim partner, floaties for little kids) whenever anyone uses a pool. When not in use, it should be out of reach or closed. (Fenced or locked up.) Access should be denied to the pool unless it's in use and in a safe manner.

We readily accept that as a society and it's something that's so engrained in our persona that we don't need to talk about it. Pools are dangerous. Use caution when around or in them. But yet, with guns, something we also know to be dangerous and require training and safety measures, we blame it on the object and not the people involved when something goes "accidentally" wrong. Why?

And for the record, a moat (kind of like a swimming pool) would be a very effective countermeasure to rioters too! Maybe almost as good as Claymore mines!

Because guns have a stigma attached - resulting from their singular purpose (to shoot $hit).

The purpose of a pool is not to drown in it...

Actually a guns singular purpose is to defend liberty.

I thought that was the purpose of capes, masks and brightly coloured spandex outfits?

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Because guns have a stigma attached - resulting from their singular purpose (to shoot $hit).

The purpose of a pool is not to drown in it...

Actually a guns singular purpose is to defend liberty.

The Liberty Tree (1646–1775) was a famous elm tree that stood in Boston, near Boston Common, in the days before the American Revolution. The tree was a rallying point for the growing resistance to the rule of England over the American colonies. --Wikipedia

"The Tree of Liberty, must be nourished from time to time, with the blood of patriots." T.J.

Always keep things in context!

Bullwinkle

Edited February 4, 2009 by Rocky_nBullwinkle

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Send them to Chicago, and let them live with the messiah Barry O, let him deal with them, he is the change agent that can do anything so let him deal with them!

We are entering a Second Great Depression.

This will be a time of great upheaval. Much sorrow. Much pain.

The large issues of the day will be swept aside, for we will all be concerned, first and foremost, with our own survival.

So, the question must be asked. When the rioters arrive in YOUR neighborhood, what will you do?

Return to sender, address unknown. In case you hadn't noticed, Mr Obama changed address, he doesn't live in Chicago any more

sister, this is zqt; I wonder if he/she knows where he/she lives

[justashooter 430]

from a tactical standpoint, holding up in your house in fear of rioters is the worst thing you can do. you will get burned out, for sure.

you are much better off taking a forward position (minimum of 200M, but within line of sight), keeping the violence (and attention) away from your home. all persons with the appropriate training understand this. getting joe law to allow you to take such a course, or a judge to support it in court, is another matter. suffice to say there is a place and time for current issue multicam and equipment that approximates the current issue as closely as possible. of course, wearing of unit identification is a big no-no, and a balaclava is advised. a minimum of 4 persons so attired and equipped will turn just about any mob in another direction. A gpmg on bipod is a guarrantee.

am i set to play this game? sure, i have the multiple M4 and gpmg, and multicams for myself, my wife, and my boys (24 and 18). will i need to, living in a farm house 10 miles from the nearest sizeable town? prolly not. for such reason, an F150 painted in the M880 camo pattern creates a credible mobile platform.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you have one of those lead-lined, hermetically sealed bunkers installed under your yard - in case Saddam's mythical WMD decide to show up over Hicksville?

[Peikko 1,575]

It does come across as a tad insane - but then I guess it's merely an extension of the 'look at me, don't I have a big willy?' syndrome.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

from a tactical standpoint, holding up in your house in fear of rioters is the worst thing you can do. you will get burned out, for sure.

you are much better off taking a forward position (minimum of 200M, but within line of sight), keeping the violence (and attention) away from your home. all persons with the appropriate training understand this. getting joe law to allow you to take such a course, or a judge to support it in court, is another matter. suffice to say there is a place and time for current issue multicam and equipment that approximates the current issue as closely as possible. of course, wearing of unit identification is a big no-no, and a balaclava is advised. a minimum of 4 persons so attired and equipped will turn just about any mob in another direction. A gpmg on bipod is a guarrantee.

am i set to play this game? sure, i have the multiple M4 and gpmg, and multicams for myself, my wife, and my boys (24 and 18). will i need to, living in a farm house 10 miles from the nearest sizeable town? prolly not. for such reason, an F150 painted in the M880 camo pattern creates a credible mobile platform.