Pen > Sword > Gun

[barsoomcore]

Ashrem Bayle is a mammal.
Ashrem Bayle flips out ALL the time.

Ashrem Bayle is cool, and by cool I mean totally sweet.

 

[caudor]

Ashrem Bayle is cool, and by cool I mean totally sweet.

Long live Ashrem Bayle! That somehow sounds pretty cool

 

[Paladin]

I see no reason why the homeowner could not have had a gun if he wanted one. I don't know what California's gun control laws are like, but I don't believe there's any state in the USA where it is impossible to obtain a gun legally. There may be waiting periods, licensing fees, mountains of paperwork and red tape before and after you buy the thing and more to come if you ever use it, but you can get one.

California's gun laws are the most restrictive in the U.S. It's not impossible to obtain a gun there, just nearly. They have a list of what you can't own - it might as well be a very short list of what you can own.

In addition, I failed to notice the part of the article (at least this one) where the homeowner lamented his lack of a gun. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

Yes, it's common sense: which would you rather have if faced with a gun-wielding attacker - a gun or a sword. I carry two guns at all times and have a concealed handgun license to do so. This guy got LUCKY.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of people are uncomfortable with guns, and yes, sometimes it's for no good reason and it's just a personality quirk. I personally would gladly use a sword over a gun. Like I said - personality quirk. So maybe this homeowner was like me in that regard. Maybe he had some other reason for using a sword. Maybe the sword was closer than his Colt .45. The article just doesn't go into that.

I'd prefer we all carried swords too - but we can't for some stupid reason. My point was he had to resort to an archaic weapon and in California he'll probably get sued for doing so. It's sad when the criminals have more rights than the citizens.

So, given that we just don't have these facts, I would ask that we all focus on the eternal coolness of a guy defending his home with some good old-fashioned steel rather than turn this into a meaningless and all-too-lockable debate about gun control. And, moderators, if my comments here are too political, I do apologize; let me know and I shall remove them with all possible haste.

I was commenting (without directly commenting to avoid the political issue as much as possible) on California's super-restrictive gun laws. And the fact that he should've cut him in two...

 

[Talaysen]

And I was suggesting (and expounding - perhaps a bit too much - on said suggestion) that we avoid political commentary on this matter, especially as this is a board on which political commentary leads to locked threads. In addition, as I tried to point out to you, you are making a number of assumptions here and in fact *creating* the very opportunity for political commentary that you chose to exploit.

Look, all I'm saying is, this is a perfectly good thread and I'd rather not see it locked. Perhaps you could take your comments on California's gun laws elsewhere? I used to frequent the PvP forums at www.pvpforums.com (if memory serves), and I know they love a good political debate - perhaps you could try there.

 

[Paladin]

Hey, if you don't want a response to your comments, then you can take them elsewhere. You made it political by bringing up the political side, not me. And he still should've cut him in two...

 

[Jeph]

Remind anyone else of that scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Iniana is confronting that persian warrior doing all types of kata with his scimitar? Indy rolls his eyes and shoots the guy.

 

[Talaysen]

I brought this up at my college's Chess & Games society meeting tonight and it gave us all a good laugh. As much as we all love swords - and believe me, a good many of us do love swords - I think our reaction would've been about the same as Indy's.

I do have to wonder whether the gun was actually loaded - if it was, surely the guy would've used it - but, on the other hand, I imagine that very few armed robbers would expect someone to be crazy enough to come after them with a sword. I guess I'd see it this way: a rabid dog is a rabid dog whether you've got a gun in your pocket or not. And a crazy guy with a sword is a CRAZY GUY with a FRICKIN' SWORD!!

 

[med stud]

I brought this up at my college's Chess & Games society meeting tonight and it gave us all a good laugh. As much as we all love swords - and believe me, a good many of us do love swords - I think our reaction would've been about the same as Indy's.

I do have to wonder whether the gun was actually loaded - if it was, surely the guy would've used it - but, on the other hand, I imagine that very few armed robbers would expect someone to be crazy enough to come after them with a sword. I guess I'd see it this way: a rabid dog is a rabid dog whether you've got a gun in your pocket or not. And a crazy guy with a sword is a CRAZY GUY with a FRICKIN' SWORD!!

If the robber would have shot him dead he would be in for a life sentence (or hanging/electric chair/poison/whatever). Now he will be tried for theft of a car. Kind of stupid to kill someone to avoid a fine...

How sad is it that a law-abiding citizen has to use a sword in self-defense and a scumbag criminal gets to use a gun? It should be the other way around.

It will be hard to convince the criminals of that

 

[Talaysen]

If the robber would have shot him dead he would be in for a life sentence (or hanging/electric chair/poison/whatever). Now he will be tried for theft of a car. Kind of stupid to kill someone to avoid a fine...

Point - one I thought of at the meeting, actually, but forgot until now. Probably the guy figured he could use the gun to intimidate anyone he ran into. Too bad he met the business end of a katana, eh?

And I don't think they have the death penalty in California. I'd be very surprised, at any rate.

 

[Piratecat]

Talk about gun laws, win a free closed thread at no cost.