Texas - I love living here!!!

[dude1394]

What if said property were your livelihood? Someone is going to burn down your lifelong business for example.

So if you lost it your family would be horribly distressed. Thrown out of house, home and on the street.

Is it truly immoral?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Just remember that, the next time you read or hear about someone getting murdered...then up further investigation they find a rap sheet on the perp, who happened to start his/her life of crime as a burglar.

Mary could have stopped the senseless murder rampage, if bag when they where walking out of your house with your Wii, Mary was in position to shoot the criminal, but felt that the criminals life was worth more than the future lives that criminal would destroy...including your Wii with that target practice game...

Why stop there? Let's stop the dilinquent activity even sooner. Let's start shooting people for unpaid traffic tickets and littering. Clearly these people are headed for a life as a serial killer.

Better yet, why don't we start shooting people that don't pay their taxes? That hit a little closer to home?

[mary]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What if said property were your livelihood? Someone is going to burn down your lifelong business for example.

So if you lost it your family would be horribly distressed. Thrown out of house, home and on the street.

Is it truly immoral?

Well, that's kind of "the rub" as Chum would say, about "morality" and "righteousness".

It ain't free..and it ain't always easy.

Either that, or I have SERIOUSLY misinterpreted my own religion.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mary

You've kind of missed the point. I said in cases where actual PEOPLE in danger, I agree with you. But choosing PROPERTY over LIFE is not only illogical, but immoral....not matter how heroic people make it out to be.

It was a "hanging offense" in the past to "rustle cattle" (which means to steal another's cows).

Is our criminal justice system so far removed from our own heritage that if I steal a cow that I should expect to be apprehended peacefully and sentenced to a classroom about theft and vocational training to find a better job than cattle rustling?

[wmbwinn]

And, on the issue of women and firearms, my wife did a tour of duty in the Airforce and "qualified as a sharpshooter" with the M16/AR15 platform. I know that if I failed to get the burglar/criminal in my house, that my wife may very well succeed where I failed...

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

You are not allowed to bear arms in Germany,

But it´s easy to purchase a gun. You only have to join a gun club or pass the hunters examina.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

But it´s easy to purchase a gun. You only have to join a gun club or pass the hunters examina.

Yes, but:

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Last but not least, it´s also a question of tenor of the inhabitants of a country. And in Europe the tenor of people regarding this topic is totally different from America,...

I don´t think, anyone in Germany feels the need to bear a gun for his safety...

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

So, in hindsight, how are you going to save your knees (and ass) in the future? Want at least a Taser stun gun?

Sorry for delayed answer.
Knees and ass...they could easily have managed my dental ridge out or knock me out.

Since i only wanted to take a letter to the post office, with 5 beers in, i should take more care of strolling riff-raff. Walk out sober. Dress appropriately. Look that a guy can´t take a stand in my back. Be prepared to immobilize one, maybe with pepperspray, and then take care of the other, in this case because they were skinny. Get my fitness on a higher level, to run away if necessary, since such dudes usually carry more than keys and a lighter with them.
And vote for parties who bring such crap where it belongs to.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Yes, but:I don´t think, anyone in Germany feels the need to bear a gun for his safety...

True. But as a houseowner i perhaps would purchase a 5,25 to fire a volley when in need

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

Sorry for delayed answer.
Knees and ass...they could easily have managed my dental ridge out or knock me out.

Since i only wanted to take a letter to the post office, with 5 beers in, i should take more care of strolling riff-raff. Walk out sober. Dress appropriately. Look that a guy can´t take a stand in my back. Be prepared to immobilize one, maybe with pepperspray, and then take care of the other, in this case because they were skinny. Get my fitness on a higher level, to run away if necessary, since such dudes usually carry more than keys and a lighter with them.
And vote for parties who bring such crap where it belongs to.

Cool. As to the pepper spray answer, here is how you do it effectively:

buy a WWII era design 26.5 mm flare gun. They can be found cheaply (under 30 dollars US currency).
buy a flare insert tube that converts it down to 12 gauge
buy cayenne pepper loaded 12 gauge shells DESIGNED for the flare gun (there are some pepper spray 12 gauge shells on the market that are designed for real 12 gauges where the powder/accelerant load is heavy enough to blow up the flare gun in your hand.

The entire investment cost me less than 70 dollars US currency. I also put one together for my mother who works at Parkland Dallas County Hospital. She packs it in her purse/bag.

It is a beautiful idea. The blast of cayenne powder is massive and cloud like. Unless their is a strong wind blowing back towards you, its effect on your intended target are significant... Eyes turn red and burn and close and he/she can't see. Nose runs like a water faucet with gagging and choking. Airway and lungs burn...

Plenty of opportunity then to handle the situation.

In the USA, this is a perfectly legal option. The BATF (bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms) has ruled that:
1)the flare gun is not a weapon. Therefore a concealed flare gun is not a concealed weapon
2)A flare gun loaded with pepper spray (whether converted or an original 12 guage flare gun) is not a weapon and is in the same category as a pepper spray device. It can be concealed and does not constitute a concealed weapon.
3)Now, if you have regular 12 gauge ammunition with your flare gun... The BATF regards it as a Destructive Device (a category that requires an application, registration, and has several other laws attached to it and requires a 200 dollar fee and several levels of law enforcement investigation before you are granted a level 3 National Firearm Act permit).
4)The law regarding the flare gun is identical as the law regarding a grenade launcher which, as a device, is quite similar to a flare gun

I don't have a clue what the law is in Germany.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

It was a "hanging offense" in the past to "rustle cattle" (which means to steal another's cows).

Is our criminal justice system so far removed from our own heritage that if I steal a cow that I should expect to be apprehended peacefully and sentenced to a classroom about theft and vocational training to find a better job than cattle rustling?

I certainly hope our criminal justice system has progressed beyond that. It would be simply barbaric for the criminal justice system to kill a man for stealing a cow.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I certainly hope our criminal justice system has progressed beyond that. It would be simply barbaric for the criminal justice system to kill a man for stealing a cow.

The cow was emblematic of someones livelihood. Someone who would steal someone else's livelihood probably doesn't deserve much sympathy.

Folks on a range who had risked all to stary alive out there weren't in charitable moods when it came to thiefs.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I can´t notice any argument which explains, why it is necessary to shoot a thief. I am against guns, but maybe I could acquiesce in shooting a burglar in the legs for example, to stop him and then commit him to the police.

I also have no problem with:

To shoot on a burglar, if he runs away from you, in the back, makes you a murderer. And in my world, to kill someone is a much more serious crime then to steal, isn´t it?

Having been in that situation before (I was 11.. didn't ahve a gun), trust me.. you really don't have time to figure out what their intentions are. You just hope to God that you or your family isn't going to die. Obviously, this situation that you guys have been discussing is different.. But what you've mentioned in this response, Zoidberg, just isn't possible. First off, most people aren't going to have their wits about them enough to shoot and hit someone in the legs. Also, you just don't have enough time to figure out what their intentions are. It's different if they're already out the door and running towards their car.. but if they're in your house, most people aren't going to be able to keep a calm enough head to sit down and analyze the situation. Trust me... I thought I was going to die during the situation. I thought my entire family was going to die.. Hell, I thought I was going to die for the next month afterwards.

[Murphy3]

Just a couple of questions...

1. How many of you have ever been home when robbed?..or walked in on a robbery?
2. How many of you have ever been a witness to someone being shot to death?

[dude1394]

Not I...Closest I've come is watching someone get hit by a car.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Just a couple of questions...

1. How many of you have ever been home when robbed?..or walked in on a robbery?
2. How many of you have ever been a witness to someone being shot to death?

Not me on either count.

Although I have heard two people being shot to death, in the youtube video linked in this thread.

[Murphy3]

I'm just curious... I've had the unpleasant pleasure of being robbed a couple of times... the first time was stated above.. the second time was this past year. Plus, a guy was murdered across the street from my house when I was 12.. knocked off right outside of my house. Trust me..it's something you'll never forget. I didn't see the actual shooting, but heard the gunshots and looked out right then to see more than I bargained for.

Anyways, my only point is that it's difficult to know what you'd do in any type of situation. I know that the idea that you should aim for the legs is dumb to say the least. You just don't have enough time and you don't usually know their intentions. Even when they're exiting the house, it still happens so fast that there's really difficult to always make the brightest decision. I suppose that it's this reason that I believe that anyone that robs another's house gets absolutely no sympathy from me if they are blown away.

I suppose that in a perfect world, the victim has a detailed report on the robber's intentions and then has plenty of time to make a 100% rational decision.

[jthig32]

Oh I definintely agree that there's no way to tell how you'd react until you're put in that situation.

However, I'm going to give myself enough credit to believe that I would stay inside and not take the law into my own hands when it's not my house that the burglar is climbing out of, and the 911 operator is telling me over and over again that the police are on the way and to stay inside.

I just thought of another point on this issue. People are talking about how this guy is a hero because he looked out for his neighbor. Well, if you listen to the 911 call, he says the following:

1. He doesn't know whether his neighbor is home or not (while the burglars are inside the neighbor's house)
2. He doesn't know this particular neighbor very well, and if it was the other neighbor's house being broken into, he would already be over there.

So, the idea that this guy is a hero is somewhat humorous to me. If he wasn't sure if his neighbor was home, shouldn't he have been heading over to the house with his shotgun to make sure something terrible wasn't happening to his neighbor?

In reality, when he saw the burglars climbing out the window, he got PISSED that they were going to get away and he decided to take the matter into his own hands. He wasn't scared. Scared people don't walk outside and say "Move and you die".

If he'd killed them as they climbed into his house, I would have no issue.

[Murphy3]

I think the guy in question has a few issues... My responses were more directed at some of the other stuff said in this thread... like 'shoot them in the leg'... and crap like that.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I think the guy in question has a few issues... My responses were more directed at some of the other stuff said in this thread... like 'shoot them in the leg'... and crap like that.

Yeah, shoot them in the leg really isn't....realistic.

Definitely agree there.

[wmbwinn]

Glad you chimed in here Murphy3. I have not been in situations as bad as you described. But, I have been in bad situations and what I know is this:
1)you react
2)you don't have time to be logical and rational
3)the laws should remain in favor of the homeowner and the neighbor rather than providing new rights to the criminal
4)it is not a good idea to rewrite these laws in opposition to a man/woman defending his life, family, property, and the same categories as they affect his neighbor.
5)we are talking about bad situations without good answers. If a thief/murderer/rapist/innocent schizophrenic breaks into my house and I react in a way to cause harm to him, then who has committed the greater crime? The law should favor the homeowner and neighbor. If we find out later that the man is an innocent schizophrenic who is harmless but lives in his own little strange world and that killing him was unnecessary, that doesn't change the facts. You are still going to react. Some of you are going to run and scream in horror. Some of you are going to kill him. Some of you are going to act somewhere in between. The law should favor the homeowner and neighbor.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Glad you chimed in here Murphy3. I have not been in situations as bad as you described. But, I have been in bad situations and what I know is this:
1)you react
2)you don't have time to be logical and rational
3)the laws should remain in favor of the homeowner and the neighbor rather than providing new rights to the criminal
4)it is not a good idea to rewrite these laws in opposition to a man/woman defending his life, family, property, and the same categories as they affect his neighbor.
5)we are talking about bad situations without good answers. If a thief/murderer/rapist/innocent schizophrenic breaks into my house and I react in a way to cause harm to him, then who has committed the greater crime? The law should favor the homeowner and neighbor. If we find out later that the man is an innocent schizophrenic who is harmless but lives in his own little strange world and that killing him was unnecessary, that doesn't change the facts. You are still going to react. Some of you are going to run and scream in horror. Some of you are going to kill him. Some of you are going to act somewhere in between. The law should favor the homeowner and neighbor.

I agree with everything in this post if you remove "and neighbor".

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Just a couple of questions...

1. How many of you have ever been home when robbed?..or walked in on a robbery?
2. How many of you have ever been a witness to someone being shot to death?

I walked into my rented dorm with my wife with a robber already in the dorm as described earlier in this thread. My response to my wife screaming and the man being in our living quarters is described earlier in this thread

I have not seen someone shot. I did see two men fight with ballpeen hammers. One received the sharp end in the side of the head. The other was crushed repeatedly against an anvil. I was young (middle school/junior high). I won't forget it. I shrunk back in horror at that age and a large man who was our gym teacher broke up that fight.

I have seen knife fights at the same rough neighborhood junior high. The same large gym coach jumped into the middle of those unarmed and disarmed the assailants and kicked their arse to the degree he had to stop the fight.

I have had a group of men try to rob a Dairy Queen when I was a teenager and was an employee of Dairy Queen and was one of only two teenagers in the building that night closing the store... I was able to get the other teenager to call the police who responded before the thiefs could get into the store.

Anyway, I agree with Murphy3. You just don't know how you will react until you are there. And, the laws should favor the party that was initially innocent and thrust into a bad situation.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I agree with everything in this post if you remove "and neighbor".

It is still a quick reaction. It is almost reflexive. I still maintain the points of my original post including the "and neighbor" phrases.

Are you going to do nothing if the woman next door is being raped and screaming in horror?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

It is still a quick reaction. It is almost reflexive. I still maintain the points of my original post including the "and neighbor" phrases.

Are you going to do nothing if the woman next door is being raped and screaming in horror?

Saving a person from personal harm is protected by law no matter where they are. No need for special provisions for that.

[wmbwinn]

I can think of one example of an exception of my own arguement. Law enforcement and military personnel are so well trained that their reactions to bad things are predetermined.

The rest of us do not have that advantage.

But, again, I can't wait for the police or military.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Having been in that situation before (I was 11.. didn't ahve a gun), trust me.. you really don't have time to figure out what their intentions are. You just hope to God that you or your family isn't going to die. Obviously, this situation that you guys have been discussing is different.. But what you've mentioned in this response, Zoidberg, just isn't possible. First off, most people aren't going to have their wits about them enough to shoot and hit someone in the legs. Also, you just don't have enough time to figure out what their intentions are. It's different if they're already out the door and running towards their car.. but if they're in your house, most people aren't going to be able to keep a calm enough head to sit down and analyze the situation. Trust me... I thought I was going to die during the situation. I thought my entire family was going to die.. Hell, I thought I was going to die for the next month afterwards.

That statement was posted to the particular case of Mr. Horn. I wrote before

(4) To shoot an offender or someone who tries to get in your house and doesn´t stop or go away despite your demand is OK.

Also I have no problem a burglar being shot, if he already is in your house, as you are in mortal danger and you protect your life...

I wrote before:

(6) Mr. Horn is an exception and it was dumb from him to flout the request of the dispatcher not to leave the house.

For me it was not proportional to shoot the burglar, who already ran away from Mr. Horn (despite being covered by law for this). Hence I said, that I could agree to shoot the fleeing burglar in the legs. Mr. Horn was not in mortal danger at this moment, as the burglar ran away. Would Mr. Horn not have hit him in his legs, who cares...

If the burglar would have changed direction and run toward Mr. Horn again, I would agree to a shooting.

And another point.

If I have understood it right, by law the neighbor has to give you the order to protect his property, to be allowed to shoot. From the phone call it became explicit that:

Originally Posted by jthig32

1. He doesn't know whether his neighbor is home or not (while the burglars are inside the neighbor's house)
2. He doesn't know this particular neighbor very well, and if it was the other neighbor's house being broken into, he would already be over there.

So for me it´s clear he didn´t get an order of the neighbor, to portect the property and therewith violated the law, as he tried to stop the burglars. He was "lucky" that the burglar entered his property (I can´t notice, if the other man also entered the property of Mr. Horn). Otherwise Mr. Horn would have been arrested.

[wmbwinn]

Britain has strong gun control laws. Frankly, most guns are illegal there.

Many of the anti-gun crowd have said that they wanted to reduce crime by removing firearms. The NRA crowd has said that the gun is only a tool and a criminal will use a different tool if he cannot use a gun. The problem is people, not tools.

Well...

Guess what...

Britain has a knife problem...

-----------------------------------------

LONDON (AFP) - Britain is struggling to get to grips with a surge of fatal knife attacks, which analysts say reflects a growing sense of insecurity on the country's streets.

ADVERTISEMENT

While some say young people are increasingly carrying knives as a fashion item, others say it is simply because they are scared of being attacked and so make sure they are armed.

On Friday police confirmed the death of an 18-year-old in south London, the 21st teenager to die of violence in the British capital this year, amid wider concerns about anti-social behaviour among young people on the streets.

That came after nine people were killed across the country the previous week, including six in only 24 hours.

"We have seen the emergence of a worrying trend in relation to knife crime ," said Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alf Hitchcock.

"We see both an intensification in the severity of offending, and a worrying change in the age profile of offenders and victims, which has decreased from mid- to late-teens to early 20s down to early to mid-teens," he added.

Analysts say young people appear to be increasingly worried about their own safety, although Home Office statistics released Thursday showed a nine percent fall in overall crime in England and Wales in the year to March 2008.

"They fear they're going to be attacked themselves," said Professor Gloria Laycock, from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, named after a well-known BBC television presenter who was shot dead on her doorstep in 1999.

"I don't think it's got anything to do with some fundamental social cause like the economy, or poor parenting or anything like that, because it's happened too quickly," she added.

According to a 2006 study compiled for the Home Office, 85 percent of young people who had carried a knife said they did so to protect themselves, while 42 percent of young victims of assault went on to commit an attack themselves.

The most recent crime statistics showed there were 22,151 recorded offences involving knives last year. The highest number -- 7,409 -- was in London.

"They feel they need to have a weapon for their own protection. I think that's really the problem," said Professor Douglas Sharp, head of the Centre for Criminal Justice Policy and Research at Birmingham City University.

"Young people think that life in their particular locality is so dangerous, that there's so much threat around, that when they get into confrontations they expect to be subject to some violence," he added.

But Sharp, a former senior police officer himself, said: "Most of this violence going on is not related to other criminality, is not related to fights over drug territory or anything like that.

"It's to do with fairly mundane disagreements that just get out of hand very quickly."

Another new trend is that recent killings have taken place in public places in busy city centres, outside bars and clubs, as opposed to previously where attacks were more usually the result of domestic disputes.

"This is relatively new. Certainly in the scale we are seeing this at the moment," said Laycock.

"I think it's because it's become a kind of fashion thing. Young people have got this into their head that it's more trendy to have a knife and so they're doing that," she added.

"It has to do with their image, rather than anything more fundamental than that."

This theory would seem to be backed up by media reports, which have included photos taken from social networking sites showing young people proudly wielding knives and even machetes.

But not everyone is convinced that carrying knives is simply to be trendy.

"I don't agree that it's a fashion," said Roger Grimshaw, of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London.

Research showed that young people are "more likely to have been victimised and to fear being attacked. So it's... not a trend. If they feel threatened, they try to reduce the fear by becoming threatening themselves."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080720...h_080720094616

[chumdawg]

I don't guess a knife being a fashion item in Britain is any different from folks here in the US having a room full of various guns that they like to show off.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't guess a knife being a fashion item in Britain is any different from folks here in the US having a room full of various guns that they like to show off.

Exactly the point of the NRA. People are violent critters. They will use whatever they have. The gun itself is not the problem.

Interestingly, the old defunct gun ban forbade guns with bayonets attached to them. It was laughingly called the "anti knife bill" because the gun makers and importers simply removed the bayonets and the lug to hold the bayonet on the gun and continued to sell them (along with other modifications enforced by the old gun ban law).

[mcsluggo]

yes-m. but then we are still left with some cold hard facts when we try to compare the scary murder rates in the UK with our own:

Originally Posted by Wiki

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings), a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon. The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.

you can make the "need to defend oneself" argument, and we can go back anf forth on some clear pluses and minuses on both sides of the debate.... but I don't think the "people will just find other ways to kill each other" dog hunts very well.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

yes-m. but then we are still left with some cold hard facts when we try to compare the scary murder rates in the UK with our own:



you can make the "need to defend oneself" argument, and we can go back anf forth on some clear pluses and minuses on both sides of the debate.... but I don't think the "people will just find other ways to kill each other" dog hunts very well.

So... McSluggo, my friend. Explain why Britain has a knife problem then...

People use whatever they have...

[wmbwinn]

Why do you suppose the murder rate is higher in America than in Britain?

How many Chicagos are in Britain? How many Dallas and LA metroplexes?
How many racially divided slums?

Does it matter whether the murders are performed with guns or knives or stones (the Palestians throw rocks at the Israelis and shoot rockets that are no more advanced than my 4th of July bottle rockets as to accuracy)?

Take guns away from Chicago and Dallas and LA and the murders will still happen with knives and other weapons.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't guess a knife being a fashion item in Britain is any different from folks here in the US having a room full of various guns that they like to show off.

You are at least the third person who believed that the room full of guns I posted belonged to me...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You are at least the third person who believed that the room full of guns I posted belonged to me...

What would reason would anyone have had not to?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What would reason would anyone have had not to?

examine that pic again...
do you have any idea what weapons are in that room???

That room is a museum...

Most of the guns are illegal without a level 3 NFA permit for each and every one separately.

Nonetheless, I do find it humerous.

At the time I posted that pic, my debater and I were purely having fun and throwing out wild jokes and gestures...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What would reason would anyone have had not to?

The ATF and FBI would be knocking on my door with a tank if I had those weapons...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

examine that pic again...
do you have any idea what weapons are in that room???

That room is a museum...

Most of the guns are illegal without a level 3 NFA permit for each and every one separately.

Nonetheless, I do find it humerous.

At the time I posted that pic, my debater and I were purely having fun and throwing out wild jokes and gestures...

Why do you assume that everyone has--or should have, whichever the case is--the same knowledge of illegal weapons that you have?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why do you assume that everyone has--or should have, whichever the case is--the same knowledge of illegal weapons that you have?

I don't expect others to recognize guns as well as I do. Heck, guns are my hobby. I can name all the guns in that room and tell you what cartridges they shoot and which country developed and used which gun in which wars.

It is just a hobby.

But, really, I would expect everyone to recognize the Tommy guns of the mafia mobs. I would expect everyone to recognize that the large guns mounted on tripods and bipods with wheels with bullets stacked in boxes attached to the gun by belts to be something that is probably not legal to own.

I am sure that if we started a poll, that most people recognized that that room full of guns did not really belong to me. That room is literally a museum...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I don't expect others to recognize guns as well as I do. Heck, guns are my hobby. I can name all the guns in that room and tell you what cartridges they shoot and which country developed and used which gun in which wars.

It is just a hobby.

But, really, I would expect everyone to recognize the Tommy guns of the mafia mobs. I would expect everyone to recognize that the large guns mounted on tripods and bipods with wheels with bullets stacked in boxes attached to the gun by belts to be something that is probably not legal to own.

I am sure that if we started a poll, that most people recognized that that room full of guns did not really belong to me. That room is literally a museum...

Post it again. Or better yet, link to the thread where you originally posted it. I can't recall what thread it was in, and I also don't recall looking at it that closely.

Do you ever wonder if your gun hobby, as you put it, makes you somewhat less than objective when it comes to debating gun control issues?