Lefty

They're all the same to her, apparently. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

In case anyone is interested, here is a video of the comments noted above as well as others from the Congressional Black Caucus. It's all as disturbing as it is false. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Well, you can't really blame them. If their constituents ever found out that whitey isn't really out to get them, the representatives would be out of a job. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Perhaps a system of proportional representation would get us moving in the direction you suggest. No more of this single-member district plurality bullshit. I'd be all for it. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Dog's property valuation: Stereo: $0 TV: $0 Computer: $0 Squeaky duck: Priceless Touché. Edited that line for clarity. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

That whoosing sound is the point going by your head. Again. Last try. And for simplicity's sake, let's just assume that you are alone and your dog is alone and you each encounter an intruder. Follow the steps: 1) a. You want to protect your territory. b. Your dog wants to protect its territory. 2) a. You've said that property by itself isn't worth attacking an intruder over. b. Your dog doesn't know about the value of property *edit* when compared to an intruder's life. 3) a. You don't defend your territory because you've gauged the threat of the intruder to be confined to your property. b. Your dog defends its territory because there is an intruder. 4) a. Intruder makes off with some cheap property. You figure no harm done. b. Intruder and/or dog winds up injured or dead. Over cheap property. 5) a. You made a judgement call and face the consequences, which are light since only some cheap property was taken. b. Your dog made its own version of a judgement call and YOU still face the consequences, which are severe because you let a human get mauled by a dog over some cheap property. Any of that getting through? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I gotta say, if that situation ever occurred I might start laughing too hard to shoot them. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Sounds like a good way to get knifed while you're working all that out. Center mass until he stops. If he lives, good for him. If he doesn't, too bad for him because he attacked me with a deadly weapon. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Not inanimate, but certainly a tool in defense situations. But a dog is a tool that, no matter how much training you give it, you have even less control over than a gun. The dog won't know if an intruder is after a stereo, which VB thinks is beneath protecting, or if the intruder has more sinister motives. A human can gauge the nature of the threat. A dog just sees a threat. When you look at it in that light, having a guard dog almost seems worse since the intruder can't explain to the dog that he's only after items with a small dollar value. Which, again, VB says aren't worth defending. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree with everything in your last post, but those points aren't exactly relevant to mine. My original questions about the dog were meant specifically for virgin-burner, and the questions were prompted by these quotes from him: -------------------- "killing a guy over what, a car-stereo!? really!?" "so pulling a gun over a car stereo is what you call "mature", right!? i would call your "john wayne"-style of dealing with things immature. tell me, do you wear cowboy-boots and hats on a regular basis? those shoe-lace kind of ties!?" "a cowboy attitude, including the hats and boots, is very much relevant to kill someone over a car stereo.." "i think if you pose a threat to my own life, the life of my loved ones, or even onto others lives, then i say, you are fair game.. THAT is when you pull a gun or other means of self-protection; NOT over a car stereo.." "well, if you broke into my home, you'd have to deal with the 70lbs dobermann-rottweiler first.. if you get past her.. then you have hurt my loved ones already.. or my dog has pre--dinner-party!" -------------------- Now, if you follow his line of reasoning from the first quote to the last, it's wrong to kill someone over property--unless his dog encounters the burglar because VB isn't home or whatever. You have the same result: a burglar is attacked and possibly killed over property. When it's done by a dog, VB flexes his nuts by talking up his dog's defense instincts/training. When it's done with a human with a gun, the shooter is an ignorant cowboy. There seems to be a double standard there and I would like him to address it. I really don't know how to be any clearer than that, but I'm glad that at least a couple of people in this thread see what I'm getting at. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

A. Who are "they"? We all seem to be arguing past each other in this thread. B. IIRC, virgin_burner has said in other threads that he owns multiple guns and is quite proficient at their use. I doubt he thinks guns are bad. C. The whole "you're lock step with us or you're a gun-o-phobe" thing is why a lot of people are wary of the pro-gun lobby. A. Let me rephrase. They both (virgin and christel) have called the question idiotic without actually addressing it. B. Again, let me rephrase. Gun used in property defense = bad, dangerous dog used in property defense = totally awesome. C. That should take care of your concerns with C as well. I happen to agree with the jury in this case. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

it's a fair question - why is having a gun that you can control "immature protection of property" but having a lethal dog that you have little control over "responsible home protection"? .... It's an idiotic question. I can call my dog to come back but, not the cartridge. Jeez Sounds like you need to train your trigger finger as well as you've trained your dog, then. Notice how they all change the nature of the question or avoid it entirely. That alone speaks volumes. I guess inert gun = bad; dangerous (Virgin said as much) dog = totally awesome. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

This. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

You're right; you will be held responsible for its actions. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

But, what if they just want your stereo and your dog eats them? How could you keep such a dangerous animal around that would attack people who just want to take some of your cheap property? why do i even bother replying to such an idiotic question.. Think on it for a bit. Or am I being too subtle for you, again? Edit: Actually, I really don't expect you to grasp it if you haven't already, so let me just spell it out. You keep a dog at your house that even a relatively benign burglar would have to, as you say, "deal with" or possibly even get eaten by. This dog does not have the judgement skills of a human, and can't be expected to just bend over, ass cheeks akimbo, and let the burglar have his way with it (unlike its owner, apparently). If you had a gun, you would have complete control over what got shot, and could choose to not use force if you decided you'd rather just brew some tea while your stereo is stolen. You don't have such control over the dog, especially when you're not home. So someone could theoretically get killed by your dog for something of far less value than even a stereo. Isn't that at least as barbaric as defending your own property with a gun? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

But, what if they just want your stereo and your dog eats them? How could you keep such a dangerous animal around that would attack people who just want to take some of your cheap property? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I think your stereotypes about the shooters are misplaced. From the article: "The men are refugees who came to the United States from the former Yugoslavia in 1998." Doesn't exactly call to mind cowboy boots and hats. yet, they were american citizens!? are you a native american? when did your people come to the US!? Haha, I guess that point was a bit too subtle for you. Nevermind. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Someone's been watching too much TV. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I think your stereotypes about the shooters are misplaced. From the article: "The men are refugees who came to the United States from the former Yugoslavia in 1998." Doesn't exactly call to mind cowboy boots and hats. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

That was, without a doubt, the most unintentionally funny article written by a gun-o-phobe that I have ever read. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I, for one, am totally surprised by this information. It's not like the data from the past few decades has been showing us similar trends or anything. Though, as one of the comments in the link states, "Being a gun control advocate means never having to admit you’re wrong." Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Only one on that list I'd go out of my way to watch is Bret Baier. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Speaking of strawmen and stupid arguments, no-one has proposed a 1000% tax on the homeless and indigent. Beat me to it. The obvious point being, of course, that the national debt problem is more a matter of spending than revenue. Who gets taxed and how they are taxed is another matter. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

This. Even without those tax cuts, the great government Ponzi schemes would eventually have to be dealt with--they're simply not sustainable. The sooner people realize that, the better. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

It's actually really good, and there's a little bit in it for everyone--he even yields some time to take questions from John Kerry. Clicky. He's definitely going to be one to watch. I predict a presidential run in his future. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin