sv3n

I think it would all depend on the circumstances.........if he telegraphed you from a block away and gave you time to get prepared he would probably get tagged. But up close and personal it's a wrestling match for the weapon. So if you get attacked from behind, aren't expecting it, or a second aggressor comes in on the side then you're screwed. You're worse off than without a weapon because now you're not just trying to protect yourself, but you're also trying to keep possession and control of your weapon. ...and you're in violation of your face!

they both got assaulting an officer.....surratt got the felony version and hayes got the misdemeanor version. If they both got assaulting an officer how is it resisting arrest without violence? ...and you're in violation of your face!

so this makes no sense........"Hayes, 20, was charged on three misdemeanor counts: assault on an officer, resisting arrest without violence and disorderly conduct" If he is being charged with assault on an officer why is he only getting charged with resisting arrest WITHOUT violence? Shouldn't it be resisting arrest with violence? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Are the oceans temps really going up? Are fish and coral really dying due to higher oceans temps? Source please. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/us/22coral.html?ex=1305950400&en=3a5f024814e926e3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/oceantemps.shtml that's just a few that came up with a quick google search on......."oceans temps rising", happy reading. A bunch of newspaper articles is not what I would call "peer reviewed" sources. 1. "Bill Goodwin, a resource manager for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary"....."Tyler Smith, a coral biologist at the University of the Virgin Islands"....."Andrew Baker, a marine biologist and coral specialist at the University of Miami"......"Scott Donahue, associate science coordinator at the Keys marine sanctuary" 2. "Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies" 3. "Using 22 different computer models of the climate system, Benjamin Santer and six other atmospheric scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, together with Tom Wigley, Gerald Meehl, and Warren Washington from the Boulder-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and scientists from eight other research centers, have shown that the warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans over the last century are linked to human activities. Hurricane Ioke passes by the Hawaiian Islands on August 21, 2006, with 132-mile per hour winds in this satellite image. The storm, renamed Typhoon Ioke as it moved west across the International Date Line, later intensified to become the most powerful central Pacific storm on record. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image produced by Hal Pierce, SSAI/NASA GSFC.) NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation. Support was also received from the U.S. Department of Energy, which sponsors Lawrence Livermore." So exactly how do you listen to an oil company sponsored study over people like these? What exactly would you consider a "good" source? ...and you're in violation of your face!

That raises some interesting discussion about Al Gore's film, I'd love to hear the answers. How do you explain the rise in ocean temps that have been killing coral and thereby causing a decrease in ocean wildlife? Or the fact that the new "north passage" is opening up? What's your take on smog? Are these just natural occurances? PS - if you're gonna post a bunch of accusations, post the answers to them. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Are the oceans temps really going up? Are fish and coral really dying due to higher oceans temps? Source please. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/us/22coral.html?ex=1305950400&en=3a5f024814e926e3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/oceantemps.shtml that's just a few that came up with a quick google search on......."oceans temps rising", happy reading. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I wouldn't really say it's a political question and if it was left up to politics I don't believe that the issue would be resolved unfortunately. Take Bush for instance, his family made money off of oil right......he's got ties to Saudi Arabia through the oil business. Do you thing he's gonna put into affect an emissions standard? No the first thing he did is put in place laws that took the regulations off of companies. He refused to put in an emissions cap with the UN even though we produce the most emissions in the world. He's backed by oil. And with any other politician you are going run into that "who ever they're backed by they're gonna vote for" problem. Takeaway the backing from the get go and that wouldn't be an issue, but that's not how it works now. Anyways, you put that in a court and there should be no backers..........a judge or supreme court should be impartial (not saying they will be, but there would be more chance of it) whereas politicians are by no means required to be. ...and you're in violation of your face!

No it isn't. That may be an indicator of why you're having trouble with some of these concepts. WHERE?!?!?!? Outer space? The "cup" is the Earth dude. Let's see, who is it that has "liberated" into the atmosphere millions of year's worth of land locked carbon? Well, ultimately we have but BO and our government are the primary enablers. Once again, this elietist attitude and arogance is discusting. now wonder I can not take you seriously Instead of simply wallowing in your "disgust" at the tough questions, how about addressing them? Thanks, I couldn't have answered that array of "i have no reasonable answers to any of this, what do I do, just call it dumb....yeah that'll work" crap any better. RushMt......you can't assume you can fill a balloon up indefinitely without it popping. And that's where your argument is coming from.........we can't just breathe elsewhere, we're in a "fishbowl" essentially. You put enough crap in there it's gonna affect everything. There's a reason why the ocean temps are going up causing fish and coral to die. And the smog that you don't think is a GW factor keeps heat from escaping and therefore raises the climate temp. It also causes a rise in lung cancer. Call it elitist if you want, it's just common sense. Rather than just mock what you can't comprehend maybe you should try to read it again and again til it implants itself in your brain and makes sense. Then after that happens you can make a valid response. But the inane "yeah right that's so stupid" response does nothing. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Lungs do a reasonably good job for many pollutants. Yup, and then after a while you get cancer. Congratulations you are a winner. ...and you're in violation of your face!

How many of those people are there? billvon just pretty much proved to you that it does happen. as far as how many there are? who knows.........I never claimed a number, just that it happens. Do your own research. as I've been saying..........you escalate things to the point where now weapons need to be used, then you might get the same treatment. Golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated........and just because others don't follow it doesn't mean you shouldn't. Anybody can have a gun, by pulling yours you're giving them a reason to use theirs. guns can be a great self defense tool, but only as an absolute last resort..........you pull it right away and you're putting yourself and everybody else in the vacinity in danger. I think a lot of people have been watching too many Die Hard movies.......just because you know how to shoot doesn't mean the other guy doesn't and needs to unload a whole clip out of an MP5 to knick your shoulder once. He made a bad call by pulling out a gun on a couple of kids......I hope next time he has a little more common sense. If he really thought he was in the right he would have called the police to prevent it from happening to anyone else. And only keeping a few things in your wallet isn't living in fear......it's called being prepared, you could lose your wallet at anytime. Wether it falls out of your pocket or you get held up.........it's just being smart. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Show me a few thousand death certificates listing the cause of death as attributable to global warming, and I'll buy your argument. Global warming hasnt' been proven to have kiledl thousands of Californians. You may notice that they aren't suing utilities, whose coal fired plant cause loads of global warming. That's the problem - the judge has no idea how to gauge what problems the automakers are causing because the proof is far too speculative to award any damages. Yes. "if." I'll file a suit against you. "If sv3n happens to kill a family of 3 in a car wreck, it will affect the friends and families of the victims. That thought alone should be worth a couple hundred thousand from him." (His insurers will pay it, anyway). I agree with you a hundred percent......the proof needs to be there. The problem therein is that an organization does a study and then the oil/auto companies pay someone to do their own study with the results that they want.........who do you believe? Right. So what do we do, keep going over these studies or take a survey of all scientists in the field or make the study to end all studies on the field? From the GW stand point the recent major storms like Katrina are caused by global warming........they are also trying to prevent things like the glaciers melting, the polar icecaps melting, etc...which all would have great catastrophic outcomes which would have a large loss of life. So there's the loss of life. If the oil/auto companies are creating false studies like the tobacco companies are then they should be held liable. Smog is obviously real........so emissions are having an affect on the environment. Who's responsible? An unbiased study would come out with answers on that. And from there we would move on to hold those people liable for their share. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I dont think it will. Whats next? Sue the truckers for burning to much diesel? Or airlines for all the Jet-A they burn? How about a few lawsuits against DZ's for contributing to GW. Where does this crap stop? Logically speaking it's no different than sueing the tobacco companies for causing cancer. If they are covering things up like the tobacco companies then they should be held liable and be required to fix the problems they are causing. The thing is that if Global Warming turns out to be real, it doesn't just affect us....it affects everybody on the planet, their kids, and the generations to come. Is that worth a few billion dollars to the car and oil companies? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Personally I don't get how you could be so naive as to think that we are not having an impact on the environment and that things like global warming are linked to us. How do you explain smog around big cities? Is that just natural? How do you explain the hike in lung cancer in big cities? Think it has anything to do with all those cars pumping 19 pounds of cancer causing gas per gallon of fuel in the air? And how could one think that all that may not have an affect on the environment when it's happening all over the world? Sorry, you piss in a bucket enough times and soon enough it's gonna fill up. So you would rather have the oil companies make a few more billion than put some laws into place that would cut emissions and save a few hundred thousand people from cancer? That makes no sense, as with those laws come other jobs and new industries. It isn't going to hurt our economy. Businesses may change, but it would be no different than when the computer market started...........it's just a technology change. And it would be better for our environment. We could actually stand to make a lot of money off of it if we chose to be the industry leader in alternative energy and sold the technology around the world. The fuel economy on US vehicles has not changed in 20 years.........is that because people don't have the technology or because people want to make money? On top of that, less oil used means less dependancy on the middle east..........now see where OBL gets his money from, essentially you'd be fighting terrorism by not using as much fuel and oil. Al Queda being based out of Saudi Arabia.............guess how the country makes their money? Wake up. You say you want a clean environment, then go for it. All things don't come in the convenience package, sometimes you have to work for them. ...and you're in violation of your face!

So a young, tall guy was able to defend himself. Now gain 20 more years and some arthritis, lose 5 inches of height and strength, and try again. 72 year old vs 27 year old mugger........http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/112811/Old_Man_72_Beats_Down_Would_Be_Mugger.html............just cause you turn old doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. The guy was just prepared. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Bill Von said that folks, just incase you cant remember from just a few lines up. Just remember when it comes to defending yourself use Bill's advice and never use a gun. There are tens of thousands(if not many more) of people lying in their graves who did not use a gun in their attempt to defend themsleves. And here I was under the stupid assumption that in defending ones life that every possible measure should be taken. That's a pretty inane argument.......there's also tens of thousand of people laying in their grave because they ate at McD's a lot, should they carry a gun? Like the simpson's episode where homer gets a gun and uses it for everything....turn on the lights, turn off the lights, change the channel...........that was a joke. A gun is not the magical cure to all of life's problems. There are people who get their weapons, knives guns etc, taken away from them during an altercation and killed............so that would be a great argument with your logic to not carry a weapon because had they not had the weapon in the first place then it would've never escalated to that point. Also by your logic, if there were no guns then there would be no gun crimes. The simple fact is that there's an infinite number of possibilities that can arise in any situation. But if you introduce a weapon into an altercation of any kind then you have just forced the other person to back down or escalate things to your level............sometimes they'll back down and sometimes they'll play on your level. But if you left it alone in the first place then there would be no reason to escalate things. No sense in pouring fuel on the fire if you're trying to put it out. PS - there's a big difference between defending one's life and telling someone to get their own damn cheetos. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Come on now.....global warming is just a myth, the oil companies said so. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Lenin said, "Probe with bayonets, where you find mush proceed, where you find steel, withdraw." Call this a thug's credo. People need to choose their individual "choke point" where you draw the line in the sand and refuse to be victimized. I choose to be steel. That's why I carry and that's why I'm not afraid of being a victim. A gun is the great equalizer; it makes me stronger than four. If they reach for a weapon while I have my weapon drawn, I have them at a serious disadvantage. If they have a weapon out already, I will still draw down on them because I have the intention of killing them, whereas they probably assume I am unarmed and may only have the intention of intimidating me. Lastly, if they have a weapon out and ARE prepared to kill me, they will have to work for it because I will be blazing back at them until only one of us is left standing. A person is justified in the use of deadly force, if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. This means that I--not the bad guy--get the benefit of the doubt. And I practice the American martial art of BangPao with a Mozambique Drill! I agree with you to a certain extent......sometimes you need to be strong and stand up for yourself, but there's a fine line between being the victim and changing the roles and becoming the aggressor.........and in a legal sense the incident in question would not justify deadly force. Had they pulled a weapon or told him that they were going to kill him, at that point he should have pulled his...........not before. "I thought they were armed" or "it seemed like they were going to" aren't going to get you anywhere in court. This wasn't a life or death situation....it could have turned into it, but at this point it was not. There's a flaw in your theory.........if you choose to be "steel" all the time.........someone says something that intimidates you and you pull a gun, you've just crossed the line of becoming the aggressor............you just made them the victim. You can't physically threaten people with a weapon over a verbal comment............unless that comment is something along the lines of "I am going to kill you". I agree with you here, once again to a point...........if you can resolve the situation without killing your opponent, then that is the route you should take. If killing your opponent is your only choice then so be it. Personally I prefer a more ancient art called g` lock. Just to clarify: choosing to be "steel" doesn't mean that the only tool on my belt is a gun. It could be anything from making an assertive comment, standing up to a bully, getting a movie manager to eject some loudmouth SOB, filing a grievance against a boss, to calling 911, up to shooting some bastard dead. Being "steel" means I choose to resist the bullies/meanies/thugs/dickheads of the world who generally encounter "mush". One of the earlier posts referred to the scenario of four slugs surrounding him demanding--not "asking--for his wallet. Now I'm guessing I wouldn't have the presence of mind to remove my ID from my wallet without spooking the thugs into wasting me, but . . . . I'm gonna bet MY life that they mean me harm and aren't out collecting for UNICEF. The mistake the poster made was in pointing the gun at them too early. He should have had it at the "low ready" position and shouted "NO--I'm not giving you my wallet! Get away from me" [That should keep the ambulance-chaser/prosecutor crowd happy and let any witnesses know that YOU are the victim.] Then call 911 to CYA. Honestly, we're in agreement 100%. Gun should be last resort.....after all other options have been used. I have nothing against standing up for yourself at all, but there is a point where you do have to ask yourself....."is it worth getting shot over this wallet, watch, whatever?" or "is it worth somebodies' life for me to keep this wallet, watch, whatever?". And also as a gun owner who plans to use a gun in self-defense, you really have a responsibility to look at who else you might affect by your actions.........like bystanders. Another thing you have to keep in mind is your legal responsibility to yourself.........if someone says "give me your wallet" and you pull a gun, you might be held liable and spend some time with bubba. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Lenin said, "Probe with bayonets, where you find mush proceed, where you find steel, withdraw." Call this a thug's credo. People need to choose their individual "choke point" where you draw the line in the sand and refuse to be victimized. I choose to be steel. That's why I carry and that's why I'm not afraid of being a victim. A gun is the great equalizer; it makes me stronger than four. If they reach for a weapon while I have my weapon drawn, I have them at a serious disadvantage. If they have a weapon out already, I will still draw down on them because I have the intention of killing them, whereas they probably assume I am unarmed and may only have the intention of intimidating me. Lastly, if they have a weapon out and ARE prepared to kill me, they will have to work for it because I will be blazing back at them until only one of us is left standing. A person is justified in the use of deadly force, if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. This means that I--not the bad guy--get the benefit of the doubt. And I practice the American martial art of BangPao with a Mozambique Drill! I agree with you to a certain extent......sometimes you need to be strong and stand up for yourself, but there's a fine line between being the victim and changing the roles and becoming the aggressor.........and in a legal sense the incident in question would not justify deadly force. Had they pulled a weapon or told him that they were going to kill him, at that point he should have pulled his...........not before. "I thought they were armed" or "it seemed like they were going to" aren't going to get you anywhere in court. This wasn't a life or death situation....it could have turned into it, but at this point it was not. There's a flaw in your theory.........if you choose to be "steel" all the time.........someone says something that intimidates you and you pull a gun, you've just crossed the line of becoming the aggressor............you just made them the victim. You can't physically threaten people with a weapon over a verbal comment............unless that comment is something along the lines of "I am going to kill you". I agree with you here, once again to a point...........if you can resolve the situation without killing your opponent, then that is the route you should take. If killing your opponent is your only choice then so be it. Personally I prefer a more ancient art called g` lock. ...and you're in violation of your face!

here's an interview, it was banned in the US, with Bush in Ireland......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fze2J2Ve9is...........his relationship with god is one of the topics in it. ...and you're in violation of your face!

They are not threatening your life at that point.........if they pulled a weapon on you then they would be threatening your life. Your logic is flawed. A pre-emptive strike with a firearm would make you the attacker. What about the gun at your head scenario is flawed.....if you arrive at that point you are fighting for your life. If they pulled a weapon on you, you're fighting for your life. But until that happens you are not fighting for your life. Just cause someone says fuck off........that doesn't mean you're in a life or death situation. Otherwise you'd be pulling your handgun a lot and would be no better than some skinny little thug with a handgun pulling it any moment someone ruffles his feathers. You have to have a reason to pull a firearm.........not just because you think the other guy might attack you. Wake up.....knock knock....reality calling. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I hope you are joking! Seriously, this is some funny shit If you don't believe it would have an affect I would recommend trying the running car in the garage idea and see what you come up with.....good luck. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Sven, if you wait until the guy puts a gun to your head, you're lost all your options. You have little choice but to be compliant at that point unless you want to play Hollywood and snatch it out of his hand. Your time to act is when he doesn't know you have a gun and he hasn't pulled his out yet. Why on earth do you presume that he'll go away nicely. Robbery is a third strike offense - he'll go to jail for life if caught. Making the choice to not use the gun is one every CCW carrier can choose to do (BTW, Kris, big fucking chance on that application in California, even in OC it's not likely to be accepted). Many scenarios point to that as the better route. But no way is it reckless escalation to choose to brandish and if necessary to use the weapon. Triply so for any women in that situation. If you finally arrive at the point where a gun ends up at your temple, you've really messed and put yourself in a bad situation. You stopped at the wrong place, allowed the wrong people to approach you, let things escalate to this point, etc. And yes, if you're at this point it's time to fight.....you're fighting for your life at this point. If you don't know if he has a gun or not you can't pre-emptively strike.......that would set one hell of a bad precedent. "well I thought he was gonna attack me, so I killed him"..........see how that does in court. Why would he go away nicely? Well, if you've been nothing but cooperative he has no reason to attack you. If he does, then that changes things. But at the same time, if you've been nothing cooperative he's going to assume you'll be that way throughout......you therefore have the element of surprise on your side if you choose not to be cooperative anymore.....and he still doesn't know you have a handgun. Choosing to use a weapon should be your absolute last resort, especially in public. Using it as a tinker toy to shy away a couple of guys that don't threaten you but ask for your wallet is completely irresponsible. Ask yourself, how would the police react if you called them and told them you just pulled a handgun on a couple of guys who asked for your wallet at the gas station, but never pulled a weapon on you of any kind? You would be talking to them a lot more than you think. You wanna talk Hollywood, there you go......."yeah man, they asked for my wallet 'n I just flashed my piece at 'em". ...and you're in violation of your face!

If you put yourself in that situation, then yes. But you're missing the fact that these guys weren't armed...........they just walked up to him and said "give me your wallet". I would reply "Piss off, fuckwad. Why should I give you my wallet?" Now my hand is on my concealed weapon. If they escalate, they die. Simple, really. If you were by yourself and there was nobody else around, I would agree with that.........if you had your child with you, a loved one with you, or there were a bunch of bystanders then I wouldn't. If there are other people that will be involved then you have to take that into account.......it would be irresponsible to start something involving firearms in a crowd. ...and you're in violation of your face!

No they wouldn't. They'd be dead and the cops would probably find a rap sheet on everyone of them. Doesn't matter..........if the cops see a video with you blowing away three dudes as they're walking away and they never pulled a weapon on you.....you would quickly become bruno's new bitch my friend. Every officer I've ever talked to about self-defense has always told me the rule of thumb is don't go above what your aggressor does otherwise you're playing with fire and a very thin line of victim or criminal behavior. Doesn't matter who started it. ...and you're in violation of your face!

gimme your shoes what size do you wear? maybe we can start a fund to get you some shoes. ...and you're in violation of your face!