Welcome to Gaia! ::

Should you be able to answer the door with a shotgun?

only if it's religious (mormons/Jehovahs witnesses/etc) 0.060606060606061 6.1% [ 2 ]
only if its a young man trying to screw your daughter 0.03030303030303 3.0% [ 1 ]
only if it's an insurrance/vacuum cleaner/etc salesman 0 0.0% [ 0 ]
some of the above 0.24242424242424 24.2% [ 8 ]
all of the above 0.51515151515152 51.5% [ 17 ]
No firearms are scary! 0.15151515151515 15.2% [ 5 ]
Total Votes:[ 33 ]
< 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12 >
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Tactical Leg Sweep
Um, no. Castle Doctrine laws allow for force, ( up to deadly force) when "the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". A religious zealot, a salesman, or a kid trying to talk to your daughter represents NONE of those on the surface.

This is why firearm debates are almost impossible to have. On the one hand you've got these insane people who think no one should be allowed to own them. On the other hand you've got insane people like in this thread who think that not being allowed to wave a glock in someone's face at any given point represents a curtailing of their liberties or some s**t.


Who said anything about "waving a glock in someone's face"? We're talking about having one in hand. Not necessarily pointing at your face.

As I said, you don't know this person. You don't know what they want. But if they see a gun in your hand, they'll know what they don't want.
black_wing_angel
Tactical Leg Sweep
Um, no. Castle Doctrine laws allow for force, ( up to deadly force) when "the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". A religious zealot, a salesman, or a kid trying to talk to your daughter represents NONE of those on the surface.

This is why firearm debates are almost impossible to have. On the one hand you've got these insane people who think no one should be allowed to own them. On the other hand you've got insane people like in this thread who think that not being allowed to wave a glock in someone's face at any given point represents a curtailing of their liberties or some s**t.


Who said anything about "waving a glock in someone's face"? We're talking about having one in hand. Not necessarily pointing at your face.

As I said, you don't know this person. You don't know what they want. But if they see a gun in your hand, they'll know what they don't want.


Funny part? You have an extremist position OP trying to claim to be a moderate, when, after reading the OP, you just see nothing but slobbering down their chin anti-gun rhetoric.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Old Blue Collar Joe
God Emperor Akhenaton
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe


I think his 'historical perspective' comes from watching HBO or Cinemax grade B movies. I've been known to answer the door with my pistol on my side, but waving a gun in someone's face for no reason? That's call communicating a threat and you CAN be arrested for that.
I don't see it as logical or sane to answer the door like it's a post apocalyptic waste land and you're just verifying it's an unbitten neighbor and not the Nemesis.

A pistol at the side sure. Waving gun? No, as you noted.



Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Then that makes you belligerent.


Nope. Never once said I'd be brandishing it. Merely that I am approaching the door in an entirely different method at two in the morning than two in the afternoon. Fortunately, I live in Georgia, so Castle Law is taken a lot more seriously here by the authorities than it is elsewhere.


not brandishing it, but mindful of it's proximity to your hand, and ready to make that shorter jump should the caller turn out to be as uncivillised as the hour he came calling?
AsuraSyn's avatar

Dangerous Sex Symbol

9,350 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Mark Twain 100
God Emperor Akhenaton
No. A gun shouldn't be used unless it is defensive. Keeping your daughter's cherry untouched isn't a danger.



You're not a parent, are you?

As for the topic at hand, do you mean we can't do that?! Cause around here almost everyone answers the door armed. Hell, sometimes I head out to get the mail loaded for bear. Considering the amount of door-kickers around here, it's common ******** sense to be ready for them. In the past ten years there's been, within a single block, three murders and a dozen break ins/home invasions all done by people knocking on your front door to say hi/convert you to their faith/car broke down.
Why wouldn't you answer the door armed?

Keltoi Samurai
Old Blue Collar Joe
God Emperor Akhenaton
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe


I think his 'historical perspective' comes from watching HBO or Cinemax grade B movies. I've been known to answer the door with my pistol on my side, but waving a gun in someone's face for no reason? That's call communicating a threat and you CAN be arrested for that.
I don't see it as logical or sane to answer the door like it's a post apocalyptic waste land and you're just verifying it's an unbitten neighbor and not the Nemesis.

A pistol at the side sure. Waving gun? No, as you noted.



Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Then that makes you belligerent.


Nope. Never once said I'd be brandishing it. Merely that I am approaching the door in an entirely different method at two in the morning than two in the afternoon. Fortunately, I live in Georgia, so Castle Law is taken a lot more seriously here by the authorities than it is elsewhere.


not brandishing it, but mindful of it's proximity to your hand, and ready to make that shorter jump should the caller turn out to be as uncivillised as the hour he came calling?


As in behind the door in my hand ready. Anyone that is known to me already knows damn good and well that they call me before showing up late at night at my house unannounced. I also use my peephole as well as look out an upstairs window and listen to the dog. She's a pup, so still learning, but her actions give a lot of insight into whether it's someone she knows or not.
AsuraSyn's avatar

Dangerous Sex Symbol

9,350 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Mark Twain 100
Glorious Leader Luna
In the UK

Don't open the door

if he then try's to get in

(phone the police) go to the Kitchen to obtain a large Kitchen knife

while the silly b*****d is bashing the door open the door at the right moment he falls down

Stab stab stab

jobs a good'un boss

get covered by self defense laws.



Provided you're in a section of the UK that allows civilians to own kitchen knives.
rofl

Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Michael Noire
So here's the hypothetical model. An insurance salesman, religious zealot, or young man trying to sleep with your daughter shows up at your door. should you be able to legally answer that door holding, or even pointing a shotgun or other west of pass pest destruction in their general direction?

I've been thinking about the history of the US and culture, and parenting, and wondering whether we have become so cow towed that we no longer can even act in ways we would like or are expected to, even on our own property and inside our own homes. Have we gotten to the point where "get off my land" has become "please continue to harass me, my cellphone is still charging and it's going to take another 10 minutes before I can call the police and ask them stop whatever they are doing to show up and tell you to stop disturbing my peace" ?

Now, I could be wrong here, but I am pretty sure that it has never been expected that, if you go to a person's front door with no unlawful intent (the zealot, while annoying, the salesman, while inconvenient, and the boy, while morally questionable, are not ostensibly breaking any laws by being so), to be greeted with a gun to their face.

I honestly would like to know what history in America you are referring to, other than the romantic Wild West, which never existed.


I think his 'historical perspective' comes from watching HBO or Cinemax grade B movies. I've been known to answer the door with my pistol on my side, but waving a gun in someone's face for no reason? That's call communicating a threat and you CAN be arrested for that.
I don't see it as logical or sane to answer the door like it's a post apocalyptic waste land and you're just verifying it's an unbitten neighbor and not the Nemesis.

A pistol at the side sure. Waving gun? No, as you noted.



Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Based on the OP, I don't see anything in it which gives me cause to think he is Anti-Gun.

I also think both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun, lends themselves far too frequently of fantastic hypotheticals. Pro-gun people seem to think any and all offenses are likely to involve PCP'ed out nutters who are just itchin to rape their wives and daughters, who can only be stopped with that AK-47 you just had to have. Anti-gun people think even owning a fire arm amounts to a Yee-Haw shoot-em up mindset that is going to always result in shooting by accident little Sally who was playing Dolly-Catch in the living room.

Gun control, like alot of issues, is not logical for most people, but emotive. I have never understood this.
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Michael Noire
So here's the hypothetical model. An insurance salesman, religious zealot, or young man trying to sleep with your daughter shows up at your door. should you be able to legally answer that door holding, or even pointing a shotgun or other west of pass pest destruction in their general direction?

I've been thinking about the history of the US and culture, and parenting, and wondering whether we have become so cow towed that we no longer can even act in ways we would like or are expected to, even on our own property and inside our own homes. Have we gotten to the point where "get off my land" has become "please continue to harass me, my cellphone is still charging and it's going to take another 10 minutes before I can call the police and ask them stop whatever they are doing to show up and tell you to stop disturbing my peace" ?

Now, I could be wrong here, but I am pretty sure that it has never been expected that, if you go to a person's front door with no unlawful intent (the zealot, while annoying, the salesman, while inconvenient, and the boy, while morally questionable, are not ostensibly breaking any laws by being so), to be greeted with a gun to their face.

I honestly would like to know what history in America you are referring to, other than the romantic Wild West, which never existed.


I think his 'historical perspective' comes from watching HBO or Cinemax grade B movies. I've been known to answer the door with my pistol on my side, but waving a gun in someone's face for no reason? That's call communicating a threat and you CAN be arrested for that.
I don't see it as logical or sane to answer the door like it's a post apocalyptic waste land and you're just verifying it's an unbitten neighbor and not the Nemesis.

A pistol at the side sure. Waving gun? No, as you noted.



Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Based on the OP, I don't see anything in it which gives me cause to think he is Anti-Gun.

I also think both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun, lends themselves far too frequently of fantastic hypotheticals. Pro-gun people seem to think any and all offenses are likely to involve PCP'ed out nutters who are just itchin to rape their wives and daughters, who can only be stopped with that AK-47 you just had to have. Anti-gun people think even owning a fire arm amounts to a Yee-Haw shoot-em up mindset that is going to always result in shooting by accident little Sally who was playing Dolly-Catch in the living room.

Gun control, like alot of issues, is not logical for most people, but emotive. I have never understood this.


Because our entire political structure is based on the premise of 'more free s**t' and 'scare the ******** out of everyone with boogeymen'?
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe


I think his 'historical perspective' comes from watching HBO or Cinemax grade B movies. I've been known to answer the door with my pistol on my side, but waving a gun in someone's face for no reason? That's call communicating a threat and you CAN be arrested for that.
I don't see it as logical or sane to answer the door like it's a post apocalyptic waste land and you're just verifying it's an unbitten neighbor and not the Nemesis.

A pistol at the side sure. Waving gun? No, as you noted.



Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Based on the OP, I don't see anything in it which gives me cause to think he is Anti-Gun.

I also think both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun, lends themselves far too frequently of fantastic hypotheticals. Pro-gun people seem to think any and all offenses are likely to involve PCP'ed out nutters who are just itchin to rape their wives and daughters, who can only be stopped with that AK-47 you just had to have. Anti-gun people think even owning a fire arm amounts to a Yee-Haw shoot-em up mindset that is going to always result in shooting by accident little Sally who was playing Dolly-Catch in the living room.

Gun control, like alot of issues, is not logical for most people, but emotive. I have never understood this.


Because our entire political structure is based on the premise of 'more free s**t' and 'scare the ******** out of everyone with boogeymen'?

Yeah, I got no idea what you are talking about now. I was just speaking to the gun debate and saying that both sides use really extreme hypotheticals that are not likely to exist in the real world.

My belief is that gun control can be sensible without being prohibitively restrictive.
black_wing_angel
Tactical Leg Sweep
Um, no. Castle Doctrine laws allow for force, ( up to deadly force) when "the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". A religious zealot, a salesman, or a kid trying to talk to your daughter represents NONE of those on the surface.

This is why firearm debates are almost impossible to have. On the one hand you've got these insane people who think no one should be allowed to own them. On the other hand you've got insane people like in this thread who think that not being allowed to wave a glock in someone's face at any given point represents a curtailing of their liberties or some s**t.


Who said anything about "waving a glock in someone's face"? We're talking about having one in hand. Not necessarily pointing at your face.

As I said, you don't know this person. You don't know what they want. But if they see a gun in your hand, they'll know what they don't want.

Pretty sure common sense dictates "having it in your hand" falls under the brandishing category, which by the by, is a felony if unwarranted. There's a reason your CCW class/teacher will tell you very bluntly not to start toting it around like a jackass, because pulling it on someone when you're not in danger can land you in some s**t.
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe


I think his 'historical perspective' comes from watching HBO or Cinemax grade B movies. I've been known to answer the door with my pistol on my side, but waving a gun in someone's face for no reason? That's call communicating a threat and you CAN be arrested for that.
I don't see it as logical or sane to answer the door like it's a post apocalyptic waste land and you're just verifying it's an unbitten neighbor and not the Nemesis.

A pistol at the side sure. Waving gun? No, as you noted.



Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Based on the OP, I don't see anything in it which gives me cause to think he is Anti-Gun.

I also think both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun, lends themselves far too frequently of fantastic hypotheticals. Pro-gun people seem to think any and all offenses are likely to involve PCP'ed out nutters who are just itchin to rape their wives and daughters, who can only be stopped with that AK-47 you just had to have. Anti-gun people think even owning a fire arm amounts to a Yee-Haw shoot-em up mindset that is going to always result in shooting by accident little Sally who was playing Dolly-Catch in the living room.

Gun control, like alot of issues, is not logical for most people, but emotive. I have never understood this.


Because our entire political structure is based on the premise of 'more free s**t' and 'scare the ******** out of everyone with boogeymen'?

Yeah, I got no idea what you are talking about now. I was just speaking to the gun debate and saying that both sides use really extreme hypotheticals that are not likely to exist in the real world.

My belief is that gun control can be sensible without being prohibitively restrictive.


I agree on the rational gun control. I also believe we have it. I believe mandatory sentencing is a good thing for violent crimes.
My comment is based, when you asked why we're always on such extremes, because our government, for all intents and purposes, is 'what are they going to give me', and 'what will the others do to hurt me', as driving factors for voting on whichever candidate is available.
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe


Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Based on the OP, I don't see anything in it which gives me cause to think he is Anti-Gun.

I also think both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun, lends themselves far too frequently of fantastic hypotheticals. Pro-gun people seem to think any and all offenses are likely to involve PCP'ed out nutters who are just itchin to rape their wives and daughters, who can only be stopped with that AK-47 you just had to have. Anti-gun people think even owning a fire arm amounts to a Yee-Haw shoot-em up mindset that is going to always result in shooting by accident little Sally who was playing Dolly-Catch in the living room.

Gun control, like alot of issues, is not logical for most people, but emotive. I have never understood this.


Because our entire political structure is based on the premise of 'more free s**t' and 'scare the ******** out of everyone with boogeymen'?

Yeah, I got no idea what you are talking about now. I was just speaking to the gun debate and saying that both sides use really extreme hypotheticals that are not likely to exist in the real world.

My belief is that gun control can be sensible without being prohibitively restrictive.


I agree on the rational gun control. I also believe we have it. I believe mandatory sentencing is a good thing for violent crimes.
My comment is based, when you asked why we're always on such extremes, because our government, for all intents and purposes, is 'what are they going to give me', and 'what will the others do to hurt me', as driving factors for voting on whichever candidate is available.

I don't think so.

While I don't know why so many people have such an emotional connection to guns, I believe its got more to do with beliefs about guns promulgated by each opposing side than with a general I suppose climate of American government.

I think alot of people hold their views about guns based more on what they hear and see from the opposing sides. This creates the fantastic hypotheticals, which only convince more people that they should be taken seriously, and so on a so forth. The cycle is self-contained and feeds itself.
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe


Ever notice how the anti-gun crowd (which I'll assume the OP is) go to these completely off the wall legally stupid scenarios, and then attempt to act as if it is a reasonable action?
Now...you go banging on my door at two in the morning, you're going to get greeted a lot differently than if you knock at two in the afternoon, but during civilized hours, you're going to have the door answered by a civilized man.

Based on the OP, I don't see anything in it which gives me cause to think he is Anti-Gun.

I also think both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun, lends themselves far too frequently of fantastic hypotheticals. Pro-gun people seem to think any and all offenses are likely to involve PCP'ed out nutters who are just itchin to rape their wives and daughters, who can only be stopped with that AK-47 you just had to have. Anti-gun people think even owning a fire arm amounts to a Yee-Haw shoot-em up mindset that is going to always result in shooting by accident little Sally who was playing Dolly-Catch in the living room.

Gun control, like alot of issues, is not logical for most people, but emotive. I have never understood this.


Because our entire political structure is based on the premise of 'more free s**t' and 'scare the ******** out of everyone with boogeymen'?

Yeah, I got no idea what you are talking about now. I was just speaking to the gun debate and saying that both sides use really extreme hypotheticals that are not likely to exist in the real world.

My belief is that gun control can be sensible without being prohibitively restrictive.


I agree on the rational gun control. I also believe we have it. I believe mandatory sentencing is a good thing for violent crimes.
My comment is based, when you asked why we're always on such extremes, because our government, for all intents and purposes, is 'what are they going to give me', and 'what will the others do to hurt me', as driving factors for voting on whichever candidate is available.

I don't think so.

While I don't know why so many people have such an emotional connection to guns, I believe its got more to do with beliefs about guns promulgated by each opposing side than with a general I suppose climate of American government.

I think alot of people hold their views about guns based more on what they hear and see from the opposing sides. This creates the fantastic hypotheticals, which only convince more people that they should be taken seriously, and so on a so forth. The cycle is self-contained and feeds itself.


It's brutally hard to get a full auto, and silencers get so many feds up your a** it's not even worth it. Our gun laws are restrictive, but loose enough to leave us plenty of room to have some fun toys to play with.
As I said, sentencing should be harsher. Using a firearm in the commission of a crime should warrant an automatic minimum ten year or so sentence.
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe
Riviera de la Mancha
Old Blue Collar Joe


Because our entire political structure is based on the premise of 'more free s**t' and 'scare the ******** out of everyone with boogeymen'?

Yeah, I got no idea what you are talking about now. I was just speaking to the gun debate and saying that both sides use really extreme hypotheticals that are not likely to exist in the real world.

My belief is that gun control can be sensible without being prohibitively restrictive.


I agree on the rational gun control. I also believe we have it. I believe mandatory sentencing is a good thing for violent crimes.
My comment is based, when you asked why we're always on such extremes, because our government, for all intents and purposes, is 'what are they going to give me', and 'what will the others do to hurt me', as driving factors for voting on whichever candidate is available.

I don't think so.

While I don't know why so many people have such an emotional connection to guns, I believe its got more to do with beliefs about guns promulgated by each opposing side than with a general I suppose climate of American government.

I think alot of people hold their views about guns based more on what they hear and see from the opposing sides. This creates the fantastic hypotheticals, which only convince more people that they should be taken seriously, and so on a so forth. The cycle is self-contained and feeds itself.


It's brutally hard to get a full auto, and silencers get so many feds up your a** it's not even worth it. Our gun laws are restrictive, but loose enough to leave us plenty of room to have some fun toys to play with.
As I said, sentencing should be harsher. Using a firearm in the commission of a crime should warrant an automatic minimum ten year or so sentence.

As I said before, the laws on gun control do not cover people with mental problems. So you get things like the Aurora Shooting.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games