Originally Posted by pbrower2a;456397As noise-makers alone dogs are deterrents. Dogs leave plenty of questions of whether they can hurt someone badly, and in a nighttime burglary a crook might find it hard to distinguish between a Golden Retriever that poses little menace and a potentially-lethal Doberman or German Shepherd. Worse yet for a burglar is multiple dogs. [URL="http://news.sky.com/story/818320/death-penalty-for-rape-and-murder-of-family"

These horrible crimes probably do not happen in the presence of a pair of Dobermans, Rottweilers, or German Shepherds.[/URL]

A shooter who is intent on a body count and nothing else will simply shoot the dogs and be done with it. As impressive as the Rottweiler can be be they are simply not bullet proof. A barking dog may deter a theft and some other crimes because the object there requires a certain amount of stealth is required. Sometimes there is nothing else but to take responsibility for your own safety and that means in many cases having a firearm about.

As I have pointed out before: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

She still has her doggie.

I live and work in an urban environment. Cars and homes get broken into from time to time, but what is lost is usually replaceable. Life isn't. I'm not carrying a gun, however, because I'm in the lower 40 percent of the population for dexterity, and have bad eyesight. I will not have the advantage in any confrontation outside my home. A shotgun at home is all that is required.

Strangely, I'm not afraid of having my weapon taken away (very low order of probability), nor am I living in a state of fear. I am probably going to get a dog, for companionship, not hyper-security. Am I crazy?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

One brief quibble, Chas. Great Danes are big, but they're not a guard or even a working breed. For temperament, you'd be hard-pressed to find a type of dog more inclined to be a warm, lazy lump.

Oh I quite agree, considering I know the breeds that were bred in order to create that breed--the Great Dane has too much of the Saluki's lackadaisical attitude. When I mentioned the Great Dane I was using it as a comparison of size, not much else.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Galen

A shooter who is intent on a body count and nothing else will simply shoot the dogs and be done with it. As impressive as the Rottweiler can be be they are simply not bullet proof. A barking dog may deter a theft and some other crimes because the object there requires a certain amount of stealth is required. Sometimes there is nothing else but to take responsibility for your own safety and that means in many cases having a firearm about.

As I have pointed out before: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Not even an elephant is bullet-proof. Nobody wants a dog bite.

Nobody says that a suicidal mass-killer can be stopped except to keep him from getting a deadly weapon. Likewise a drive-by shooter. A dog might deter a scenario out of In Cold Blood or the Pettit murders (which included burglary, robbery, rape, and arson).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A dog might deter a scenario out of In Cold Blood or the Pettit murders (which included burglary, robbery, rape, and arson).

I would much rather be awakened by the barking of my dog than with a rapist standing over me. So if someone attempts to break in my home when I'm sleeping or at home, I would at least have a chance to grab the phone or alarm on my car keys.

If a person breaks in to steal stuff while I'm not at home, I agree with Bad Dog, it's just stuff.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I would much rather be awakened by the barking of my dog than with a rapist standing over me. So if someone attempts to break in my home when I'm sleeping or at home, I would at least have a chance to grab the phone or alarm on my car keys.

If a person breaks in to steal stuff while I'm not at home, I agree with Bad Dog, it's just stuff.

Right. Stuff is replaceable or expendable. Life and dignity are not.

All in all we have a huge fault in our society -- gross inequality of opportunity. To be born into the Right Family or to be able to connect to the Right Family now matters far more than talent, imagination, toil, service, or enterprise. We have gone from a capitalist order most of the way to an aristocratic order. The profit motive remains, but only for a comparative few. Don't fool yourself about our executive elite; its kids will surely want to be part of it and will do everything possible to keep it intact with themselves as heirs for all practical purposes of the plum opportunities.

Severe inequality creates severe resentments among people not brainwashed to believe that they are selected by Nature to suffer in a materialistic culture.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It would be your choice to grab your phone or car keys in that situation, and the choice of others to grab their gun.
The idea that a dog is a proper substitute for any of those things is silliness at best and ignorance at worst.

I don't know about other people's dogs, but the ones I grew up with all liked to sleep on my bed with me (usually dog piling on top of me--not a very comfortable situation, it makes you feel like you're paralyzed), and if there was a noise, if they didn't sleep through it, they usually whimpered and looked to me to find out what it was.

Of course though, there are dogs who are different in personality, but that's my experience with a whole lot of them.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by B Butler

But do not some want to deport him due to his expressing a political opinion?

Ah, you are confusing the freedom to say things with the consequences for saying things.

And let's preface this conversation by mentioning that Piers Morgan has zero chance of being deported due to a silly White House petition. Such petitions do little more than allow a few people the cute belief that they are "holding government accountable". Fortunately (with only rare exceptions) most folks treat the White House petitioning system as the joke/meme-generator that it actually is.

But let's get back to the difference between freedom and consequences. Most Americans nowadays have been so spoon fed the Official American Mythology all of their lives that they can simply not grasp the concept of actual freedom which also includes accepting personal responsibility for that freedom. Indeed the modern mythology often implies that American citizens don't need to be personally responsible at all. The truth is that with actual freedom one must take ownership of the consequences that can and do come along with it. With great freedom (power) comes great responsibility (to steal a phrase from the comics). Owning those consequences (taking responsibility for one's own actions) is not infringement. It is the opposite.

I'll give you an example. Let's say that I invite you into my home. I provide you with a nice meal, comfort and amenities. In the midst of my hospitality you exercise your first amendment rights to viciously insult my girlfriend verbally. Were that to happen you would find yourself thrown out on the street with a black eye and broken nose. Is this an infringement on your right to free speech or a consequence of your free speech? Keep in mind, you can go right home and post those same insults online or just inform friends and family. You just can't say it in my home.

How about another example. Rob Parker (a sports journalist at ESPN) recently questioned the "blackness" of Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III on a morning ESPN talking-head show. For these comments ESPN suspended him for 30 days. Now is this an infringement on Mr. Parker's right to free speech or a consequence of his free speech?

Having freedom to do anything that you want Bob, means owning all of the things that you do. We can also apply this same philosophy to firearm ownership. Having the power to kill someone or something is a great responsibility, however the exercise of this power is not the act of killing. The exercise (responsibility) is to have the power to kill at all times but knowing when and when not to use that power. In other words, it's when we have the power to kill but don't. This is what defines freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. When another person fails to use that power correctly, one who understands freedom doesn't leap at the opportunity to punish everyone else in sight. One does not suspend everyone else in the room with Rob Parker when he says what he says. One does not begin registering or depriving the freedom of all to punish the abuses of a few.

Hopefully this clarifies things for you. Oh and for the record, this is what actual free speech infringement looks like. Don't worry though; it will be coming soon to a country near you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It would be your choice to grab your phone or car keys in that situation, and the choice of others to grab their gun.
The idea that a dog is a proper substitute for any of those things is silliness at best and ignorance at worst.

I have no problem with a gun being used for protection. Just use it as a last resort. If there's a noise in the house, does one shoot first and ask questions later?

It's the assault rifles that aren't needed in the situation I offered.

No, what you need in that situation is a plain old handgun. Although a pump shotgun would work, as in the cha-click everyone knows from movies should scare an evil-doer away. Even with blanks.

The violence in this country isn't just about guns. We need to deal with the violent attitudes that breed our cultural violence which we have become accustomed. We have a multitude of violence - violence against gays, domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the school, gang violence, gun violence, racial violence. Unless we deal with the roots of these issue and create support systems, we could get rid of every gun and there would still be violence.Meanwhile, we can at least put some limitations on getting the weapons and high capacity magazines that have been used for mass murder.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

An offer of $100 gift cards, no-questions-asked, by the Los Angeles Police Department in a gun buy-back brought in some bad-boy merchandise to be destroyed:









http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2...un_buyback.php

RPGs, AK-47s, etc. The Evil Empire used to supply these to terrorists in far away lands, now, the modern day version, the SCO, supplies them to 'merican gang bangas, narcoterrorists and other monsters right in our own backyard.

Too bad they don't allow really massive magazines here in CA, I'd have multiple ones in a jiffy given who and what is out there a mere few miles away. I live in good hood in the foothills of some mountains but I can hear things wafting up from the flats. All sorts of things ...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

An offer of $100 gift cards, no-questions-asked, by the Los Angeles Police Department in a gun buy-back brought in some bad-boy merchandise to be destroyed:




Yesterday's LAPD gun buyback was so successful that two-hour waits and gift-card shortages were reported.

The department says it picked up 75 assault weapons as part of its no-questions-asked effort that saw $100 dollar cards handed out for handguns and long guns and $200 for the kind of rifle used in the Newtown tragedy. The LAPD says 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns will also be destroyed.

Good stats. But this is the one that gut us saying WTF:


Cops picked up two -- count 'em two -- rocket launchers (!) (and not one, as other outlets are reporting), an LAPD official with close knowledge of the program told us. Holy hell why do people on our streets have military grade rocket launchers?




http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2...un_buyback.php

I see it is time for today's firearms law lesson kids. Please turn to page 127 in your text books. Ignorant bloggers (and their equally ignorant readers) should immediately become suspicious any time they see a police officer in a photo op holding a rocket launcher which has either been confiscated or turned in. You see, rocket launchers are considered a destructive device under federal law and possession of a fully functioning device of this type requires very special federal licensing? How special? Well about the only people licensed to own these devices are people who build firearms.

The weapon being held by the police officer has long since been rendered inert (or was never functional to begin with). It's a collection show piece and completely inoperable. Were that a functional rocket launcher its worth would be probably somewhere around $15,000 and the owner would have had to go through exhaustive background checks including fingerprinting, photos and a few personal visits from his friendly neighborhood FBI and ATF agents. Anyone who honestly thinks a federally registered owner would turn in a $15,000 artifact for a $100 bill is stunningly naive.

Of course the whole purpose of circulating a picture of a LEO holding a completely-harmless-but-scary-looking metal tube is to make the ignorant masses believe dangerous criminals are running loose in their town RIGHT NOW with rockets, grenades and automatic weapons. Don't get me wrong, it's a perfect appeal to fear but as is always the case, fear is easily cured with knowledge.

Oh and if you want to see what I mean by "rendered inert", the video I posted above involves two weapons that had quite literally been cut to pieces and shows them being rebuilt into (in this case) functioning weapons. Most are rebuilt only cosmetically for collectors. Only licensed individuals can possess fully functioning devices.

Originally Posted by antichrist

Although a pump shotgun would work, as in the cha-click everyone knows from movies should scare an evil-doer away. Even with blanks.

I hear this sentiment a lot and it is a very dangerous one. I find this idea usually comes from a lack of firearms training.

What an evil-doer should know is that the famous click-clack sound will be followed closely by a fireball and a lead slug. Racking a shotgun is not a defensive tactic and one should not rely on sound effects for protection.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have a dog, basically a cocker spaniel... You are right in that I do not know what my dog would do to an intruder. I do not want to find out the hard way.

A cocker spaniel.... Really?

Perhaps a pack of Bichons could snuggle an intruder to death?

I don't know if America has it in them to reign in their violent culture, of which gun obsession is a big part. We see it in this thread, to the extent that people who talk sense are called ignorant (e.g. vandal, kepi, semo, and galen- how could I forget galen). What we can expect is a continuing increase in children and young people getting killed, just so that some gun fanatics can hunt birds with semi-automatic weapons. They use deception and parse words in order to confuse the people, and thus fulfill their fear and addiction to guns.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if America has it in them to reign in their violent culture, of which gun obsession is a big part. We see it in this thread, to the extent that people who talk sense are called ignorant (e.g. vandal, kepi, semo). What we can expect is a continuing increase in children and young people getting killed, just so that some gun fanatics can hunt birds with semi-automatic weapons. They use deception and parse words in order to confuse the people, and thus fulfill their fear and addiction to guns.

You are the most ignorant person of all when it comes to any subject. An interesting curiosity is that as gun ownership rates increase and yet currently violent crime rates are quite low. With a few notable exceptions, that vast overwhelming majority of firearms owners have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy did with his car.

Once again you come to the wrong conclusion with crystal clear anti-logic.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if America has it in them to reign in their violent culture, of which gun obsession is a big part. We see it in this thread, to the extent that people who talk sense are called ignorant (e.g. vandal, kepi, semo). What we can expect is a continuing increase in children and young people getting killed,

Continuing increase? Reality doesn't match your fantasy. Violent death rates are down since the peak in the 90's.

just so that some gun fanatics can hunt birds with semi-automatic weapons. They use deception and parse words in order to confuse the people, and thus fulfill their fear and addiction to guns.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

A cocker spaniel.... Really?

Perhaps a pack of Bichons could snuggle an intruder to death?

Personally, give me a Saluki--no better breed of dog IMO (but of course I'm biased). I don't expect them to go after the robber at all--unless the robber has two floppy ears and a cotton-tail.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Copperfield

A cocker spaniel.... Really?

Give him credit at least. He came right out and said his dog isn't going to be a line of defense -- in fact, he'd jump to defend it (good man!)

It's just all those other dogs that are rightfully bullet-shields. You know, the ones he doesn't know or care about.

It's perfectly consistent.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Personally, give me a Saluki--no better breed of dog IMO

Ick. Waif-thin feather-dusters?

Nope, nope, and nope.

A dog should be up to playing and rolling around with people-sized friends the way dogs play with other dogs (no teeth, of course). Fifty pounds is a low end, and that only if it's fifty pounds of bulk.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ick. Waif-thin feather-dusters?

I agree, I prefer cats myself because they are relatively low maintenance. If I need a dog for guard duty it would be the Rottweiler because of its stable temperament. Unfortunately they require a fair amount of attention and I would rather not have to scoop dog shit out of the yard.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Give him credit at least. He came right out and said his dog isn't going to be a line of defense -- in fact, he'd jump to defend it (good man!)

It's just all those other dogs that are rightfully bullet-shields. You know, the ones he doesn't know or care about.

It's perfectly consistent.

Dogs at the least are noise-makers. At the least that gives you time. I'd vacate the house and call the dog to come with me. I prefer that the cherished dog not put its life at pointless risk. Ideally it is the crook who turns tail, which is the optimum.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ick. Waif-thin feather-dusters?

Nope, nope, and nope.

A dog should be up to playing and rolling around with people-sized friends the way dogs play with other dogs (no teeth, of course). Fifty pounds is a low end, and that only if it's fifty pounds of bulk.

Salukis can be quite playful, and fiendishly clever (I once saw a bitch line her brood of puppies up in a line and teach them how to climb seven-foot tall fencing), but again it depends upon the personality (and age) of the particular dog or bitch in question. And the ones that are playful, if you don't keep them entertained and play with them, then they become a bit...destructive, trying to entertain themselves. Flap them behind their ears and they'll adore you for life. And they're excellent rodent, snake, bird, cat, or other small animal killers. Just keep your trash in a metal trashcan (dumpster diving is a favorite activity of a Saluki). And they're good for getting one to run faster too--trying to keep up with them.

Bulk is so costly to feed, and often a sign of obesity (depending upon the breed).

But I can understand, tomayto, tomahto.

~Chas'88