If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click On Detroit)   Not news: Man breaks in to house. News: Woman in the home warns the man she has a gun and will shoot, and does, killing the man. FARK: This is the 8th time someone has broken in to their house   (clickondetroit.com) divider line 387
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

13866 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 7:36 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 10:47:14 PM  

FnkyTwn: If she's white she'll be plastered all over Fox for the next week. (especially if the dead guy is black)

If she's black this story won't make it past Monday. (Tuesday if the dead guy is black)

Conservatives like guns about as equally as they dislike the idea of blacks with guns.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-02 10:50:22 PM  

TerminalEchoes: See? I can make stupid generalizations, too.


Sure, but the rest of us know how to  stop.
 
2014-03-02 10:52:00 PM  
For all the 'bars on the windows' comments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8v3F1n8E-c

/SFW
//i think
///trying to sing it in my head...
 
2014-03-02 10:56:19 PM  
Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.
 
2014-03-02 10:57:14 PM  

cig-mkr: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?
She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.


Burglars and home invaders have a habit of victimizing the poor. Especially if the perpetrator is on something. They don't usually case a place or really care if there's anything valuable. Plus everyone is assuming that the guy was a burglar. He could've been a rapist or some other type of whack job.
 
2014-03-02 10:58:47 PM  
Between this and the recent mass stabbing in China (27+ dead) it's going to be rough week for the anti gun nuts.
 
2014-03-02 11:01:01 PM  
She should do what I do, and just leave a bunch of vertical sharpened sticks coated in feces under each window. If they make it past that, I have a baseball bat coated in feces ready to go. I'm not some scaredy cat who needs to spend his hard earned money on a gun. I just make my own weapons out of common household items and feces when the moment arises that I need them.
 
2014-03-02 11:03:50 PM  

gja: Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?
Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:


She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.
 
2014-03-02 11:05:28 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: doglover:
Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

People often forget that there's a white area in Detroit (or just outside it?) that's quite uhh... white and safe.
I don't know why they would live in or near Detroit, but it's pretty normal from what I've heard.


Indian Village. Friend's parents lived there.

Or hipsters/the new yuppies in midtown and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Indian Village is a weird, weird place.
 
2014-03-02 11:07:38 PM  

gad: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

Absolutely. They are also good for suicides, murder suicides and accidental shootings of those kids in the house. And far more of them are killed than those people breaking in your house.


Except that 99.9% of the time a gun is used to repel an intruder, nobody is killed. So useless Kellerman stat is useless.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-03-02 11:08:48 PM  

mschwenk: gja: Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?
Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:

She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.


I agree, and know that is so. However I was examining only the concept of said warning shot (or any warning of any type) to be incitement for the intruder to further advance or do so more ardently. And that those actions might be deemed to be encouragement.
And that, I think, is utter rubbish.
 
2014-03-02 11:08:58 PM  

cig-mkr: genner: cig-mkr: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?
She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.

Probably wanted to steal her gun.....

And wound up on the wrong end of that deal.


Well, she at least gave him some ammo
 
2014-03-02 11:14:18 PM  
Somehow, I'm OK with this!
 
2014-03-02 11:17:38 PM  

gja: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: gja: Lorelle: anuran: Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

Decent used revolver: $200
Bars on windows: Easily a couple thousand bucks.
Moving: Tens of thousands, especially since you'll have to sell your high-crime home for a loss.

Replacing broken windows eight times isn't costly??

Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

BTW, window panes are about 5-10 bucks. Moving is just a tad more (like 10000 times more at least).

I don't care about your argument - the intruder had it coming.

I do want to know where you're getting home window panes for only $10. That's an incredible deal!

Buy the glass and do the glazing yourself. The glass is cheap at local places for simple panes. Right-angle cuts and nothing bigger than 2'x3'.
Single layer is cheap stuff.


This. The tools for cutting glass and doing glazing used to be a standard part of a home tool kit. Single pane glass is extremely common in poor areas.
 
2014-03-02 11:25:09 PM  

clarksvegas: basic hi point c-9 (tiny 9mm bullet) goes for about $189 retail


I try to avoid caliber wars - 9mm is 'good enough'.  It's when you start getting below 9mm that you start losing serious stopping power - .380 ACP, for example,  I think is a bit puny for stopping a man.

As always, the ability to hit your target trumps caliber.  A hit with a .22 is going to do more to stop somebody than a miss with a .50.
 
2014-03-02 11:25:19 PM  

Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.


so, a legal shoot saves the tax payer the cost of prosecuting the assailant if he charges in to a deadly hail of bullets.  Go to know.
 
2014-03-02 11:27:09 PM  

RottenEggs: Why didn't she call the police and run from the house or retreat to the farthest room in the house ? The police would have been there sooner or later . Why hang around when she could have clearly gotten away ? This could have been avoided . I bet this responsible gun owner creamed her jeans at the chance to kill someone

/Trollin


Yeah, When a roof starts leaking on a home, some people yell and scream before calling a roofer - others just take a few minutes to patch it themselves. Which is the better option?
 
2014-03-02 11:27:38 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.


Amazing now rethuglicans, liburtdarians, blood drinkers and herp-a-derp boostrappy types who can almost count to potatoe are incapable of reading. This thread has been full of people to the left of Ivan the Terrible. Their usual comment has been "Nice shot."

But that doesn't fit The Narrative. There isn't an opportunity to screech "Fartbongo! Benghazi! Clinton got a blowjob! Wharrrr-garble!" So in typical echo chamber conservative style you just ignore it and go on with your incessant braying.
 
2014-03-02 11:30:29 PM  

gja: mschwenk: gja: Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

 I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting.
 Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff).
 There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?
Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:

She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.

I agree, and know that is so. However I was examining only the concept of said warning shot (or any warning of any type) to be incitement for the intruder to further advance or do so more ardently. And that those actions might be deemed to be encouragement.
And that, I think, is utter rubbish.


I'd agree in most cases. Except when someone is on certain types of drugs.

One of the problems with studies is that they tend to assume that a particular answer is the correct answer in all situations. Researchers tend to overlook how different every situation is.
 
2014-03-02 11:31:38 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.


It's really demeaning to call people libtards, inferring somehow they are liberal democrats.  Call them what they are, Socialists.
 
2014-03-02 11:47:36 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: jayphat: She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"

I was thinking something on the order of little kill-markers - perhaps cartoon thieves - under the windows and beside the doors.


Ah. You're thinking of the equivalent of this:
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-02 11:51:23 PM  

way south: hardinparamedic: Wait. Wait.  I KNOW WHY YOU WANT A HI POINT.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 800x311]

You can be all high speed and tacticool on a budget, Yo!

That model is actually the best thing hi-point makes,  and pistol carbines aren't usually that affordable.
...But they are more accurate, easy to handle, get better range. Perfect for home defense.

/Mother of three used one to chase off some hoodlums a few headlines ago.
/If kel-tec would get its act together, they'd be selling alot more sub-2000's in that catagory.


I have a SU-16 that is one more lock-up away from getting thrown into a chipper-shredder.

Never really wanted an AR but now that I have one I am embarrassed at how much time I have spent beating on that Kel-Tec with a hammer.
 
Rat
2014-03-03 12:04:19 AM  
Saved him from paying taxes on all that stolen stuff.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html#en_US_2013_publink10001 7 2141
 
2014-03-03 12:06:38 AM  

WelldeadLink: Benevolent Misanthrope: jayphat: She really needs to put a sign out front.

"Number of Break-ins"
"Number of shiatheads I've shot dead"

I was thinking something on the order of little kill-markers - perhaps cartoon thieves - under the windows and beside the doors.

Ah. You're thinking of the equivalent of this:
[i.imgur.com image 850x382]


Yes.  Exactly - except with pictures of thieves instead of bombs.
 
2014-03-03 12:14:23 AM  

Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.


There are some cities (not sure if Detroit is one of them) that make it against the law to have burglar bars on your home.
 
2014-03-03 12:16:04 AM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.


All window coverings, including bars, are required by law to be able to be opened from the inside.
 
2014-03-03 12:17:22 AM  

Rat: Saved him from paying taxes on all that stolen stuff.

™ http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html#en_US_2013_publink10001 7 2141


And this ought to be mentioned, too:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Whistleblower-Informant-Award

Live in a neighborhood full of thieving, drug dealing dirtbags - and the local cops turn a blind eye? Turn it into an opportunity!
 
2014-03-03 12:26:44 AM  

hardinparamedic: Livinglush: So where are these comparison reports? I would love to see them and I will gladly change my opinion.

[www.thetruthaboutguns.com image 850x637]

You might like it. I don't. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, either. And you can google the reports of the C9 Blowing up in people's hands if you want to read them.

I'll stick to my Walther/S&W


Almost always being ammo related and the shooter didn't catch the squib. You can punch an any model of firearm and find a horror story on Google. I saw a 1911 blow up for that reason, pics at least were on InGunOwners' site.  Also the last big recall on firearms was S&W, a big name out there.
 
2014-03-03 12:42:11 AM  

duffblue: Ah Detroit: what 50 years of liberal leadership gets you.


No, Ann Arbor is an example of  actual liberal government in action, and it happens to fall on "Best Places To Live In The United States" lists all the time.

Detroit is an example of what happens when a huge industry is the only major employer in an area, and then decides to pack up and move all the jobs to Mexico, Asia, or Canada because the American market for that industry failed to diversify and follow the examples of their competition in the far east.

As for government in Detroit, the people who run for office there aren't Republicans OR Democrats; They're just plain corrupt. Some might qualify as plutocrats, but I think most of them are simply opportunists who realize they have the opportunity to get elected (because nobody decent wants to live there and run for office) and exploit the position to steal from the city and the people. The entire Detroit government has been loaded with criminals who put a "D" after their name because it was what worked in that town. If you'd like, we can compile a list of cities and towns in the southern United States with equally corrupt governments comprised of people with an "R" after their name. There are more of those than there are of the other.

You want an example of ACTUAL liberal leadership and government? It's called Denmark. And they're doing more than OK with all three of their major parties embracing some variety of liberalism. Most of the Scandinavian region is far more liberal than Detroit ever was, and it's one of the nicest places on Earth to live.

So you keep spewing that lie. Those of us who actually lived in Detroit know the truth, and those who live in actual liberal nations and cities can easily disprove your theories.

But if you wanna talk about some of the conservative towns in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, etc...
 
2014-03-03 12:54:34 AM  
I love how when you suggest that maybe making sure crazy people don't get their hands on a gun or keeping your gun away from your stupid kid means that you're saying that there are no legitimate times to use a weapon and they should all be banned.
 
2014-03-03 01:02:57 AM  

Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.


Ya there are several laws on the books that protect armed people who break into your home with intent to commit  further crimes, for instance... Name a single farking one you idiot troll.

I've seen people sued for "booby trapping" their unoccupied business, but not a single law or case in which someone broke into a home was injured by the home owner and won. It's never happened. You're an idiot.
 
2014-03-03 01:12:30 AM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.

Ya there are several laws on the books that protect armed people who break into your home with intent to commit  further crimes, for instance... Name a single farking one you idiot troll.

I've seen people sued for "booby trapping" their unoccupied business, but not a single law or case in which someone broke into a home was injured by the home owner and won. It's never happened. You're an idiot.


Once read about a guy who broke into a home, got stuck in the garage for two days, not only went free, but successfully sued the homeowners.  I'll see if I can find the story.
 
2014-03-03 01:18:14 AM  

way south: /If kel-tec would get its act together, they'd be selling alot more sub-2000's in that catagory.


They're never going to get their act together.  I've given up on them as anything other than a novelty gun maker.  Hell, I got rid of my P3AT and bought an LCP because the fit and finish was so much better.  Dumped a P11, and have stopped looking for an RFB, PMR-30, or a KSG, not to mention the Sub-2000 I tried to pick up forever.
 
2014-03-03 01:20:43 AM  

RatMaster999: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Penman: Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.
Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.

Ya there are several laws on the books that protect armed people who break into your home with intent to commit  further crimes, for instance... Name a single farking one you idiot troll.

I've seen people sued for "booby trapping" their unoccupied business, but not a single law or case in which someone broke into a home was injured by the home owner and won. It's never happened. You're an idiot.

Once read about a guy who broke into a home, got stuck in the garage for two days, not only went free, but successfully sued the homeowners.  I'll see if I can find the story.


This might be the one I was thinking of:

Man gets stuck in garage after burglary, sues family:
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish.

http://besteverawards.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/most-ridiculous-lawsu it s-ever-ever/

However, a quick poke around shows this is fake.  Guess I was wrong.


There's also this bullshiat:
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners- se lf-defense-against-intruders/
 
2014-03-03 01:28:15 AM  

BayouOtter: NO.
HiPoint pistols and rifles are
A) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.
B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALL
C) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.


This. You don't have to pay that much more for a quality firearm, you're not saving anything if it has a much higher chance to fail when you need it to work. Even a surplus pistol like a Makarov would be a far better choice.
 
2014-03-03 01:29:57 AM  

doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!


AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.


The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.


Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.
 
2014-03-03 01:31:47 AM  

SCUBA_Archer: Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle".  We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible.  Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.


There isn't any such doubt. Nobody is saying this homeowner did wrong. What the fark is wrong with you? What are you responding to?
 
2014-03-03 01:43:04 AM  

LavenderWolf: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.

The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.


And you need to actually read a history book that wasn't written for the public school system.

Also, 48 Laws of Power. That's required reading to have a valid opinion in politics.
 
2014-03-03 01:57:49 AM  

doglover: LavenderWolf: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

AngryDragon: Can't be.  Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth.  All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight.  This is irresponsible reporting.

The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.

And you need to actually read a history book that wasn't written for the public school system.

Also, 48 Laws of Power. That's required reading to have a valid opinion in politics.


I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.

Right now, gun owner ship in the USA is 100% secure. A classroom full of dead kids isn't enough to sway the American population. Right now, the people constantly accused of trying/wanting to take your guns have absolutely zero interest in doing so.

Past gun confiscation by others is completely irrelevant to people who don't share that viewpoint at all. Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory. Dirty librul here, huge fan of guns. Almost everyone I know likes guns. In fact I don't know a single person who thinks that gun ownership should be illegal.

Who are you arguing against? Who is trying to take your guns? Why do you attribute this "gun grabber" attitude to everyone left of you on the political spectrum? I am of course referring to both you and the other person I originally quoted.
 
2014-03-03 02:00:59 AM  

bigsteve3OOO: There is no difference between this incident and Trayvon.  Bad person got shot trying to injure innocent person.


Because Trayvon was breaking into houses when Zimmerman shot him, right?

What's the point in this sort of stupid trolling?  You just try and say the stupidest thing you can come up with, so everyone will know you're an idiot?  I really don't get it.
 
2014-03-03 02:30:29 AM  
LavenderWolf: It's thirty-forty years of Pavlovian conditioning by the NRA and the GOP. "Them librul commies is comin' to TAKE YOR GUNS!!! Unless you send us your prayers and $500 they'll leave you defenseless and filthy Negroes will violate our Precious White Women"
 
2014-03-03 03:01:39 AM  
I do not own a firearm, but believe in the right to own one and do not think that right should be taken just because a few criminals ruin it for the rest of you. No one talks about taking everyone's knives when people get stabbed, no one talks about taking everyone's cars when someone gets run over. One thing in this thread has me a bit weary, all the posts dealing with how ugly a brand of gun is. Does your desire for weapons come from self-defense, or is it a fashion accessory? Are you trying to defend your property, or playing a game of dress up Barbie? I hope you feel safer because of a pretty gun, when I buy one it will be for function, not because it matches my shoes.
 
2014-03-03 03:08:16 AM  

aNihilV10L8tr: I do not own a firearm, but believe in the right to own one and do not think that right should be taken just because a few criminals ruin it for the rest of you. No one talks about taking everyone's knives when people get stabbed, no one talks about taking everyone's cars when someone gets run over. One thing in this thread has me a bit weary, all the posts dealing with how ugly a brand of gun is. Does your desire for weapons come from self-defense, or is it a fashion accessory? Are you trying to defend your property, or playing a game of dress up Barbie? I hope you feel safer because of a pretty gun, when I buy one it will be for function, not because it matches my shoes.


Does looks have anything to do with what car you drive?


Just because I can use it as a way to defend myself doesn't mean it can't also be viewed as a piece of art.
 
2014-03-03 03:25:04 AM  

anuran: LavenderWolf: It's thirty-forty years of Pavlovian conditioning by the NRA and the GOP. "Them librul commies is comin' to TAKE YOR GUNS!!! Unless you send us your prayers and $500 they'll leave you defenseless and filthy Negroes will violate our Precious White Women"


And every damn time someone uses a firearm appropriately - something I think very few people have a problem with - the victims of that conditioning flock to the internet to proclaim to all the lands that the noble, persecuted gun-owning portion of the population has scored another victory against the EVIL GUN GRABBERS.

It's like... "Dude. Let's go to the range and then get drunk. You might realize how pro-firearm liberal people really are.
 
2014-03-03 03:25:39 AM  
"
 
2014-03-03 03:29:58 AM  

LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.



Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.
 
2014-03-03 03:37:58 AM  

doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.


You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.
 
2014-03-03 03:40:27 AM  
How do you know if a Republican owns a gun? Don't worry, they'll tell you. Over and over again. And damn you for opposing his right to do so, whether you actually oppose that right or not.

How do you know if a Democrat owns a gun? You don't...
 
2014-03-03 03:45:09 AM  

LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.
 
2014-03-03 03:50:38 AM  

RatMaster999: LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.


Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%
//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.
///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.



Oh, and this...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-0788-c_magazin e_ declaration.pdf
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report