If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message
... From: Kerryn Offord The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there). Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? You're not, in the UK. There's a general "duty of retreat" - if someone gets in your face and shouts insults, you're expected to back off rather than hit him, and if he pursues then his intentions are obviously hostile - but it's accepted that once in your own home you've run out of places to retreat to, and should not be forced to flee. I gather that doesn't apply in some US states, which is interesting. -- Paul J. Adam |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the other non gun crimes in the UK. Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns. Prevent, no. Seriously reduce the odds, yes. (And many of those 'guns' are replicas, blank firers, air pistols or dodgy conversions - they all count as "firearms" in the crime statistics. One guy tried to rob a post office using two pieces of gas pipe taped together: that was a 'firearm crime') It only prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by someone mcuh larger/stronger than you. And being armed would change what, precisely, if you're outnumbered and surprised? Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a good thing to shoot anyone. No,I am NOT joking. Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber? I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers. Why do you wish to protect criminals? A few years ago, a Scotsman was working in Texas. He made the mistake of knocking on someone's door to ask for directions: the homeowner shot the guy several times through the door and killed him. Was he a "criminal"? Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though. You fire a weapon in my direction, you are making a deliberate attempt to kill me, and I *will* take it extremely personally. Firing at someone is "deadly force" and there's no way to weasel around it. Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible. If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible felony",yes it is legal to use lethal force. I've been told with a straight face that it's fair and reasonable to shoot and kill trespassers. Someone sets a foot on your lawn and you're allowed to kill them. Same poster claimed that this was entirely right and reasonable. And inside one's home,the "castle doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.) See above for the inconsistency. These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be. True here too: just no need for lots of handguns. Someone breaks into your house, you're allowed to hurt them until they leave, and if they try to come back you can hurt them some more. Just make sure that most of the wounds are in their front, not their back. (And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the back of the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She could have had a MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference) -- Paul J. Adam |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if he's fending away Indians from the homestead. Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who successfully defend themselves with firearms every year(in the US). Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on the London street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also wounded by the burglar. Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against larger,stronger young thugs unarmed? Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect everyone,24/7/365? It's not so. I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However, were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go to her home taking a pistol with him. If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have read of many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to their gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and they get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even after being shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend themselves increases the risks for the criminals,often to the point they pick some other crime to commit.And it's far better than just hoping the criminal has good intentions towards you. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former. Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details: In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths. In 2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517 murders in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000. Even accounting for the relative population sizes of the two countries, you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that does not include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms in the same time period. Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the UK must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher than in the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing. Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the other non gun crimes in the UK. Except that UK gun laws do NOT prevent criminals from having guns.It only prevents ODCs from having guns(for self-defense).You still could get shot,or knifed,or clubbed,or simply beaten to death by a group or by someone mcuh larger/stronger than you. True, the law can never prevent the criminals from owning firearms, and in recent years there's been a steady stream of weapons into the UK from the Baltic States. However, a criminal in America is 99.9% likely to own a gun and have it with him inside your house, in the UK this is just not the case. The type of criminal who carries a gun in the UK is not petty enough to rob your home, they'll be bigfish. The driving factor for an American criminal to carry a gun is to protect himself from your 9mm. Also those of the police. That puts you, your family, and any bystanders in danger each time you take up your gun and fight the good fight like a true American hero. The police have a right to carry guns, as by your law, you do too. You are very obviously a conscientious gun user and very capable with your weapon, yet not all citizens of your fair country are that meticulous, and that's when they become too much of a danger for society to accept. Were a close friend or relative of yours killed whilst at the bank by a member of the public attempting to foil a heist, are you au fait with that? If you are, there's something wrong. As regards to violent beating/stabbings in the UK - I've haven't seen any information that would indicate that they are anymore likely/unlikely than in the US. So you can speculate whether that is the case, but it's not the issue at hand. I have not, in my posts, stated that the UK is some crime free haven, nor that the US is some 'Escape from New York' style war-zone. Really, bad people exist in all societies, just in some quite a few of them have guns. You are incorrect to state that at-home burglaries are much higher in the UK. 1,309 domestic burglaries occur per 100,000 population in the US equating to a 1.3% chance of your VCR ending up in someone's swag bag each year. Where as in England there is an average of 14.5 domestic burglaries per 1,000 households - being conservative and assuming just two persons per household (the average is actually a little over three) - that's 14.5 incidents per 2,000 population, i.e. a 0.73% chance of being burgled. Simply put, you are at least twice as likely to be burgled in the US than UK, (although obviously it depends greatly upon the area in which you live, since these burglaries will not be spread evenly throughout either country's populace). http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html That, if anything, proves my point over yours. From the very first line of your reference: 'The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate.' Although I appreciate that the website goes on to argue that gun control is not the limiting factor - I disagree with those opinions presented - yet the hard facts remain. Just look at that table. http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...1,761948,00.ht ml I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America, and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly force that are so willing to use it. Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal. Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a good thing to shoot anyone. No,I am NOT joking. Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber? Why do you wish to protect criminals? I have no desire to harbour/protect criminals, especially of the variety you describe. They, frankly, are ****s and deserve everything that is due them. There are of course various tiers of criminal and I would argue that an opportunist burglar in to swipe your VCR is not deserving of two in the chest and one in the head. They aren't all baby-eating, gang rapists off on a busman's holiday to your front room. You, as neither policeman nor judge, are not in the position to legally deliver deadly force. So, yes, kill the ******* but face the repercussions. It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when they purchase their pistol, nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff . As the judge, jury and literally the executioner, you're doing as much a disservice to the public as the chap you've just shot. The most basic appreciation of rudimentary criminal justice yields at least that. Hey,the criminal is the one who should bear the risks;if they get shot in the commission of a crime,it's their own fault.And not every shot kills,so shooting someone is NOT being "judge,jury and executioner". Nice try at emotionalizing the issue,though. I am not the drama queen you seem to think I am. That phrase, cliché that it is, is poignant nonetheless. I agree, criminals should bear the responsibility of their actions over their victims. Yet regardless of M-kills, K-kills, whichever, the concept of a citizen delivering deadly force - successful or not - what would you call that person? They either get caught on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the public. But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use firearms to defend themselves. Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible. If you believe your life to be in danger,or to stop a "forcible felony",yes it is legal to use lethal force. And inside one's home,the "castle doctrine" holds(in most locales);that they are not there for any good purpose,that it's threat to your life.(Although you cannot shoot them in the back,if they are fleeing,then they are not a threat anymore.) If I believed my life, or more importantly that of my wife or child, to be in danger and lethal force were the only option, then yes I would be fully prepared for trial over the legality of the death. That's reasonable. What isn't reasonable is to fire upon a man you find in your home who presently doesn't represent a life or death situation. Hard to understand, I know, but you as a citizen has a duty to all - fellow citizen and criminal alike - to preserve life. These laws place the onus on the criminal,not the ODC,the way it SHOULD be. Yes, I agree. As the onus should be on you to defend yourself at trial for the death of whoever you shoot, let a jury decide your fate and the legitimacy of your actions. There should be no 'Get out of jail free' card - bedlam soon follows. Jim Doyle -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"N329DF" wrote in message ... Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****? in a minute. If he is stealing my truck, that I use to make my living with, that might have the tools I use to make a living with, and is my only means to get to work, then he is no more to me than a vermin to be delt with. If the the criminals knew that the sentence for stealing a car was death or life in prison, they might think otherwise. There is a reason they used to hang horse thieves. A horse was a familys mean of survival, to plow the fields, to go into town to get supplies, to hunt with. Today the car has replaced the horse. When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third party insurance in the US? I don't mean to be rude, but drawing a comparison to 18th century policy just makes you look even more out of the dark ages. Someone tell me - this isn't the genuine feeling amongst all Americans?! Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the 2003 world champion drill team Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote: From: Kerryn Offord SNIP This should be qualified. The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there). Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder intends harm he will follow you outside. *** I was talking about the attitude that grabbing a gun is the first thought, over and above the simple idea of 'getting out of there'. Where 'getting out of there' means getting out of whatever room the intruder is in (no need to leave the house, but you can. Avoiding a confrontation is the safest thing for most people. Your attitude seems to be.. "there is an intruder, let's go and kill the SOB". Me, I like to think my first thought, assuming there is nobody I'll be leaving in danger, is to get out of there and call the police. Personally, even if I had a gun (well I do, but its safely secured), will I be able to shoot someone? Rather than confront someone only to find I can't react swiftly enough, I'll try and avoid confrontation. Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you. *** Having others in the house means you have already reached the limit of retreat. You can't avoid a confrontation, so make your best move. Just don't use a hand gun, and that shotgun had better have been secured before you grabbed it. Think of how the jury would see it.. "I was defending my children." is a hard one to beat... just try to do it legally (no illegal weapons kept ready for self defence)... a cricket bat is a great weapon (a recent case: A man heard his daughter scream. He grabbed a cricket bat and slammed it into the person standing in the dark over his daughter's bed.... He was defending his family.. the police didn't even think of charging him.) OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what? At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason? *** First off.. you don't have to get outside, just out of the room the intruder is in.. If he/she follows... well, you tried to avoid confrontation.... But anyway... there are neighbours... they are usually willing to answer the door when someone knocks on it (the won't even shoot you as you walk up the front path)... If the resident is unable to defend themselves for some reason, why would they want to confront the intruder? And, you want to attack someone using a kitchen knife? No thanks... to much chance of getting hurt (I have a 'stick'). There is no reason you can't grab a weapon as you withdraw from confrontation... just that it shouldn't be a hand gun (of course the only handgun/intruder shooting resulted in the death of the intruder (he was armed with a VHS cassette) and not much happened to the householder (in spite of all the laws he broke using a handgun.) If someone follows.. well, you tried to avoid confrontation... Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours? OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy to make the dicision to harm you? *** You are assuming that if there is an intruder it is a case of his life or mine... that might be how it is in the USA, its not what its like in NZ. There are very few intruder crimes in NZ (most burglaries are when the house is unoccupied. Most intruders, as soon as they realize someone is up and about will do a runner. There is no need to let an intruder into your house. You can defend the door. You can probably even get away with threatening to shoot someone to keep them out. I'm assuming the person has gained entry to the house... in that case, you want to think about getting out of there (if discovery doesn't cause them to do a runner)... You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot. *** In NZ, if I shoot someone other than when they are running away, (or even walking away).. i.e., they are potentially a threat, I can shoot them and they cannot sue me.... as long as a jury considers it reasonable force. In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot has to be made in an instant. *** Biggest "room" (open plan dining/lounge) is about 30' long, Everything else will be less than 21'. This assumes you have a firearm to hand. Do you always carry a loaded firearm around your house? Me? I don't. If someone is in the house I'm going to make a noise and if that doesn't scare them away, I'll find something I can swing (stick, rolled up magazine or newspaper)... meanwhile I'll be calling the Police. Personally I just wouldn't think of using a gun. In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that. *** The thing is, care to guess how many incidents there are in NZ where a house holder accidentally shoots a member of their household? I think the same number applies to UK, and probably even Australia. As I said, its a matter of attitude. In NZ and probably UK and Oz. Firearms are not the first response to an intruder. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: Kerryn Offord Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote: Jim Doyle wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote: SNIP Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. SNIP This should be qualified. The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there). Why should one be forced into "getting out of" his residence? If you do that you have lost whatever edge you may have over the intruder. If the intruder intends harm he will follow you outside. Let's say you have 2 children each in his own room, do you retreat alone, take the time to grab one or both? In the time it takes to wake one child and convince him he has to leave his home the badguy is on top of you. OK, once you get outside then what? If the intruder follows you and is capable of harming you he will still do so. Fight back once you are outside? With what? At least you could get to the kitchen and grab a knife inside the home. What if the resident is unable to defend himself or herself for whatever reason? Let me ask you a question. Is the life of a criminal more important than yours? OK, you let the badguy in, what then? You now have NO defense. What if the badguy decides to rape you, your wife or child? What if he wants to beat a family member? Don't tell me the family member will get over it, I have seen life long physical and emotional injuries. Don't think that's bad enough? He's in a position to kill all of you to eliminate witnesses. Why allow the badguy to make the dicision to harm you? No, the life of a criminal of the type you describe is worthless. Genuinely. Yet there is a distinction between him and some random hard-up opportunist burglar with a family to feed. Granted, he's in the wrong - but not deserving of a death sentence. The sole problem I have is with the very blurred distinction between the two, and the trigger happy nature with which a large number of Americans (taking Usenet posters as my only regular contact with Americans) seem happy to deal with in these situations. Again, I think this boils down largely to a difference between our two countries. Although the UK has crime, just as any other country, I have never heard in all my years of such an incident as you describe above. Although sadly, there's always a possibility that this may happen, we do not live in fear of such horrors. If you do in America, then I completely understand your motives for owning a weapon for home defence. But do you really live in fear of this? Can I ask of the circumstances you found yourself in when you drew your weapon? You can't shoot to maim or wound because he can sue and probably win. You really can't wait until his intentions are clear. If you can get him to stop his attack without shooting do so, if not shoot. In Florida the magic number is 21 feet. If the badguy has started his attack and you shoot him dead he is likely to complete his actions up to 21 feet. You may have a house with 21 foot rooms, most of us don't. The decision to shoot has to be made in an instant. In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that. That's interesting and refreshing to see, genuinely. I have taken the impression from the majority of post over the past couple of days that there is a general blasé attitude toward firearms and killing in the US. I have very limited knowledge of the NRA, but from what I can see they seem to promote firearm awareness and safety - which can't be bad in anyone's book. Are all firearms owners in the US members of the NRA? Jim Doyle Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Jim Doyle" snip I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to why you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right should exist. Jim Doyle I don't think anyone is advocating shooting anyone. I personally have drawn my weapon and it ended peacefully. No, I'm not law enforecment. Having said that there is a real fear of injury or death at the hands of criminals. I used to own a sporting goods store that sold guns. I lost a few sales suggesting little old ladies get medium size barking dogs instead of guns. I specified 'barking' since the bad guy is more likely go away without entering when the dog lights up. If you have a nonbarking dog that bites the bad guy you leave yourself open for a lawsuit. Believe it or not in the U.S. a burglar can sue for injuries incurred in the commission of his crime. I don't think a person should HAVE to fight with an intruder so I truly believe a law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and carry loaded fire arms. Consideration must be given to the safety of children in the home. Do you not fear that your children could be hurt by the very gun that is in your hands to protect them? To be fair most of the fears felt by citizens is unfounded and aggrivated by alarmist news media, but if a firearm in the house makes one feel safe why should it be anyone else's business? Would you rather we were unarmed and afraid? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message ... Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote: Jim Doyle wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote: SNIP Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. SNIP This should be qualified. The culture clash is only over hand guns and using firearms for self defence (as a first line over and above getting out of there). In the UK (also NZ) there is a long history of owning long arms (rifle, shotgun), and basically they are 'easy' to buy. In NZ you can use a firearm for self defence... but you must be 'in fear of ....' for yourself or others. Using deadly force to protect property is frowned upon. If you do shoot someone... if you shoot them in the back, expect the police to take you to court. If the person is shot in the front, depending on circumstances (anything short of fatal), the police will not proceed. If the shooting is fatal a court (coroners) must determine whether there is a case to answer. Historically, for a shot in the front, while in fear of injury case, the court finds self-defence. The UK operates in a basically similar way. While I can't say about NZ, the UK differs substantially from USian practice in that people who defend themselves (in their own homes or elsewhere) are subject to routine second guessing as to the use of "excessive force" by prosecutors. It seems (from this side of the pond) that there's strong feeling among the "governing classes" that self-defense is illegimate until proven otherwise. This isn't a "guns" issue but a self-defense issue. In most places in the US, once an assailant crosses the line and begins an assault, a homeowner can escalate to any level of violence he feels is necessary to stop the assault. Note "assault" and _not_"battery". |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote:
In case you are wondering it breaks my heart when accidents happen such as shooting one's own family member. Personally I want every citizen taught basic firearms safety even if they are opposed to owning guns. They can use fake guns. At the very least every child should be taught what to do if they find a firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that. In the US, gun deaths have been decreasing since about 1992. There were a bit under 30,000 gun deaths in the US for 2000. Of those, about 55% were suicides and 40% homicides. The remainder were accidents of one form or another. So accidental shooting (at least to death) isn't really your most likely way to come to an end via gun violence. Studies have overwhelmingly confirmed that people who take gun safety courses *don't* have gun accidents. Furthermore, children who have taken such courses largely don't end up playing with guns and having accidents with them. SMH |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
When I read this, my jaw just hit the desk. You are advocating the concept
that a life is worth less that a few material goods. Don't you have third party insurance in the US? Where I live, we have the highest automobile theft rate in the US. Getting insurance to cover that is getting to the point it is not affordable. Alot of people don't have insurance to cover the loss of a car or truck, and if they lose it, it could be the difference between keeping a roof over thier head and food on the table. In my own family, my dad had a 74 F-100, he was getting ready to retire, and knew that truck would be the last one he most likly ever to be able to get. He put in a factory new motor, tranmission, every system gone thru to make it like new. IT was stolen from his driveway less than a yr into his retirment. The insurance would only pay for a truck that was a rust bucket and was not reliable enough to go anywhere in. So not only did my dad loose his truck, he lost his retirment plans, and insurance could not replace the truck with a as good one. I may sound callous bout taking a life in the defence of a car or truck, but the vermin that stole my dads truck did alot more than just steal a truck, they stole his future. I don't hunt, because I don't like to kill a creature, be it a deer, rabit, bird, snake, for sport, but I have no problem taking out a rat or other forms of vermin, and thieves, either car or house, are a form of vermin. Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the 2003 world champion drill team Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
*White* Helicopters??!!! | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 13 | March 9th 04 07:03 PM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |