Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Daily Mail)   Pop quiz hotshot. Armed robbers are using your daughter as a human shield. What do you do? What do you do?   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

18972 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2014 at 4:36 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-06-12 12:08:36 AM  
quickly try to decide what to kill them with, my AR15 pistol with EoTech, my AR15 rifle with ACOG, or my H&K91 with Fero Z-24 scope. or, go hardcore and use one of my glocks. either way, i'm going suppressed so i dont hurt my daughter's hearing!
 
2014-06-12 12:17:31 AM  
Sacrifice her for the greater good of the NRA
 
2014-06-12 12:17:58 AM  

Livingroom: AR15 pistol with EoTech,


You need a SigTac forearm brace for it!  Sure, in a pinch you might sidle that stock up to your shoulder and fire it like a short-barreled rifle, but it's legally still just a brace on a pistol.

d2444os31gbwts.cloudfront.net
 
2014-06-12 12:20:59 AM  
Call Liam Neeson?
 
2014-06-12 12:29:36 AM  

BravadoGT: Livingroom: AR15 pistol with EoTech,

You need a SigTac forearm brace for it!  Sure, in a pinch you might sidle that stock up to your shoulder and fire it like a short-barreled rifle, but it's legally still just a brace on a pistol.


That is legally not a rifle stock. and review I read of it said the guy couldn't hit a damn thing with it strapped like that, as it prevents you from lining the sights up with your eyes..
 
2014-06-12 12:33:49 AM  
One robber dead, the second critical and daughter unharmed. Somebody should be getting one hell of a Father's Day gift next Sunday.
 
2014-06-12 12:35:53 AM  
Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.
 
2014-06-12 12:45:40 AM  

syrynxx: BravadoGT: Livingroom: AR15 pistol with EoTech,

You need a SigTac forearm brace for it!  Sure, in a pinch you might sidle that stock up to your shoulder and fire it like a short-barreled rifle, but it's legally still just a brace on a pistol.

That is legally not a rifle stock. and review I read of it said the guy couldn't hit a damn thing with it strapped like that, as it prevents you from lining the sights up with your eyes..


Using it as a brace is awkward. Works much better tucked in the shoulder
 
2014-06-12 12:51:59 AM  
Quit reading Daily Fail dreck?
 
2014-06-12 01:04:46 AM  
Shoot the hostage?
 
2014-06-12 01:19:19 AM  

BravadoGT: Livingroom: AR15 pistol with EoTech,

You need a SigTac forearm brace for it!  Sure, in a pinch you might sidle that stock up to your shoulder and fire it like a short-barreled rifle, but it's legally still just a brace on a pistol.

[d2444os31gbwts.cloudfront.net image 590x300]


i've got a c93 pistol with collapsible stock registered as my sbr, but irons only. no optic on it.
 
2014-06-12 01:21:04 AM  

a particular individual: Shoot the hostage?


You are correct, sir!
 
2014-06-12 01:23:07 AM  
From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"


mlkshk.com
 
2014-06-12 01:25:02 AM  

BravadoGT: Livingroom: AR15 pistol with EoTech,

You need a SigTac forearm brace for it!  Sure, in a pinch you might sidle that stock up to your shoulder and fire it like a short-barreled rifle, but it's legally still just a brace on a pistol.

[d2444os31gbwts.cloudfront.net image 590x300]


tbh i find that using a padded tube is actually superior. recoil is virtually nonexistent anyway with 5.56, so i just cheekweld the heck out of a padded tube. its actually more fun to shoot than my carbine length.
 
2014-06-12 01:26:11 AM  

rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"


Also in Comments:

"pat, USA, 4 hours ago

Good job. Now take your wife to the range."


Nice!
 
2014-06-12 02:12:23 AM  

rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"

[mlkshk.com image 330x186]


How is that cost effective?  There is a chance that you could hit the prison and then you would have to keep rebuilding these things.  Long-term outlook isn't very good with this plan.
 
2014-06-12 03:23:21 AM  

5 star chef of tv dinners: rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"

[mlkshk.com image 330x186]

How is that cost effective?  There is a chance that you could hit the prison and then you would have to keep rebuilding these things.  Long-term outlook isn't very good with this plan.


I'm not sure if you saw No Escape..  make tthe prisoners build their own prison
 
2014-06-12 03:27:30 AM  
And just because I wanted to look it up, the initial plot summary is rather hilarious:

In the year 2022, the penal system is run entirely by corporations, with prisoners seen as assets. Highly-trained ex-marine John Robbins is imprisoned for life for murdering his commanding officer, who in 2011 ordered him to kill scores of innocent men, women and children in Benghazi (Libya).
 
2014-06-12 03:45:22 AM  
It just goes to show you that you've probably made some pretty bad choices in your life if you have a kid at 17 years old. One of those choices will probably be deciding to live in an area where people will kidnap your kid outside your doorstep.
 
2014-06-12 04:42:07 AM  
I give my daughter the "kill" command.  Then I take the dead robber's wallet and have an ice cream cone with his money.
 
2014-06-12 04:46:41 AM  
Daily Fail Headline:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

That wasn't very nice of the father to use his daughter as a human shield.
 
2014-06-12 04:49:28 AM  

bhcompy: 5 star chef of tv dinners: rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"

[mlkshk.com image 330x186]

How is that cost effective?  There is a chance that you could hit the prison and then you would have to keep rebuilding these things.  Long-term outlook isn't very good with this plan.

I'm not sure if you saw No Escape..  make tthe prisoners build their own prison


You don't need to cite to a movie; there's all sorts of real-life precedent for that.  For example, San Quentin State Prison in California was built by convicts living in a prison ship anchored in San Francisco Bay, who were moved in once it was finished.
 
2014-06-12 04:50:01 AM  

5 star chef of tv dinners: rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"

[mlkshk.com image 330x186]

How is that cost effective?  There is a chance that you could hit the prison and then you would have to keep rebuilding these things.  Long-term outlook isn't very good with this plan.


the island is the prison.. no buildings.. nothing,... the prisoners have to build their own very rough shelter if they even know how.. and if the navy hits that shelter.. too bad. back to square one.
 
2014-06-12 04:52:52 AM  
"The girl's mother, also 34, fired shots using her gun but did not hit either man,"

i1207.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-12 05:00:50 AM  
Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.
 
2014-06-12 05:02:46 AM  
img.myconfinedspace.com
 
2014-06-12 05:04:33 AM  
Dad rubbed one out and maimed the other.
 
2014-06-12 05:09:53 AM  
Hope I have a large enough calibre to go through two people?
 
2014-06-12 05:10:16 AM  
Sigh.

Two more touching photos to include in the Fark anti-gun threads.
 
2014-06-12 05:14:15 AM  
What the media keeps failing to report is that Gun Crime (and Violent Crime overall) has dropped considerably in the last 30 years.

The only issue is that we're hearing about these crimes more often, due to the internet and 24 hour news.  I can also guarantee that all the anti-gun folks would be on their knees in thanks if a good Samaritan saved their child.
 
2014-06-12 05:14:56 AM  
This man and his family almost became victims in the War On Drugs.  I wonder where they'll build that war memorial when it's over?
 
2014-06-12 05:15:31 AM  
Is 'shoot the perp in the crotch with my badass cyborg powers' an option?
 
2014-06-12 05:20:23 AM  
He shot dead armed robbers using his daughter as a human shield? Why would he shoot them if they were already dead? And why would he use his own daughter as a human shield?
 
2014-06-12 05:25:18 AM  

starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.


Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.
 
2014-06-12 05:26:17 AM  

bhcompy: And just because I wanted to look it up, the initial plot summary is rather hilarious:

In the year 2022, the penal system is run entirely by corporations, with prisoners seen as assets. Highly-trained ex-marine John Robbins is imprisoned for life for murdering his commanding officer, who in 2011 ordered him to kill scores of innocent men, women and children in Benghazi (Libya).


MAREK!!
YOU WANT IT?
COME AND GET IT

/hilarious? your talking about a farking American institution. You give No Escape the respect it deserves, dammit
 
2014-06-12 05:30:21 AM  

phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.


Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!
 
2014-06-12 05:31:02 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: It just goes to show you that you've probably made some pretty bad choices in your life if you have a kid at 17 years old. One of those choices will probably be deciding to live in an area where people will kidnap your kid outside your doorstep.


8 of 10.  You might get some bites
 
2014-06-12 05:35:00 AM  
img.fark.net
You show them what will really is.
 
2014-06-12 05:36:06 AM  
I know what Mal Reynolds would do...
 
2014-06-12 05:44:57 AM  
Of course, I would have merely directed the robbers' attention to the TV on the wall playing the Fruity Oaty Bar commercial while I and the rest of the family began backing out of the room.

Actually, I only came to this thread to point out the headline on TFA is possibly the new benchmark for idiotic copywriting:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

 ...Really? Dead armed robbers were shot by a man who used his teenage daughter as a human shield while a home was invaded? Did he use his daughter to shoot them, too? Was he invading the dead robbers' home, or was it that the invading robbers couldn't feel or move their arms?
 
2014-06-12 05:49:53 AM  

Livingroom: quickly try to decide what to kill them with, my AR15 pistol with EoTech, my AR15 rifle with ACOG, or my H&K91 with Fero Z-24 scope.


upload.wikimedia.org

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


Nope. You're confusing vengeance with immediate legitimate defence.
 
2014-06-12 05:51:05 AM  
The answer to these is always to shoot the hostage, right?
 
2014-06-12 05:52:43 AM  

Yaw String: Dad rubbed one out and maimed the other.


he also killed a badguy and injured another badguy. Oh, you didn't mean masturbate. Carry on.

5 star chef of tv dinners: How is that cost effective? There is a chance that you could hit the prison and then you would have to keep rebuilding these things. Long-term outlook isn't very good with this plan.


Oh, I dunno. I bet there's some senator out there with a friend in the building business... just sayin.

Also: good for this guy! I wish him and his family all the best, but he really needs to talk to his wife about aim.

And I'll give subby the correct use of 'hero' tag. Good subby, good! *pats on head*
 
2014-06-12 05:56:08 AM  

Grotesk: Dead armed robbers were shot by a man who used his teenage daughter as a human shield while a home was invaded?


comma goes where?

I understand what you mean, but the lack of comma after the word 'robbers' makes all the difference here.

The headline of TFA is headachey, but not really in the way you point out.
 
2014-06-12 05:59:19 AM  
uttertosh:

The headline of TFA is headachey, but not really in the way you point out.

Nope, sorry, my bad. Upon rereading the headline I see all that you pointed out, and then some.
 
2014-06-12 06:00:20 AM  
Apparently the robbers were 1. Horrible shots 2. Not good at using a shield the size of a human
 
2014-06-12 06:21:35 AM  
Robbers fail at basic human shield 101. Pick a human larger than you.
 
2014-06-12 06:28:01 AM  
Dad did well. Mom sounds like a liability.
 
2014-06-12 06:30:37 AM  
Or as Mayor Bloomberg calls it: 2 more victims of gun violence including a violence.  The dead guys name will be read at some vigil as if he was a martyr for gun control.  Just like when they read the Boston Bombers name and the Newton shooters name.
 
2014-06-12 06:32:56 AM  

lobotomy survivor: [img.fark.net image 850x356]
You show them what will really is.


Don't you mean,

1.bp.blogspot.com

/Came for Keyser Soze reference, leaving happy.
 
2014-06-12 06:40:23 AM  

Yaw String: Dad did well. Mom sounds like a liability.


No kidding, especially since her daughter was the human shield.  I'm sure the daughter is delighted that her dad is such a great shot; and that her mom is that bad instead of almost good enough.  But seriously, though, if I were in that situation, I would never have enough confidence in my aim to shoot at a target who is using my child as a shield.
 
2014-06-12 06:44:28 AM  
McClinton!

1.bp.blogspot.com
images.agoramedia.com
assets.nydailynews.com
 
2014-06-12 06:49:43 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


white knighting for thugs who took a hostage. You farkers are unreal
 
2014-06-12 06:51:22 AM  

Livingroom: quickly try to decide what to kill them with, my AR15 pistol with EoTech, my AR15 rifle with ACOG, or my H&K91 with Fero Z-24 scope. or, go hardcore and use one of my glocks. either way, i'm going suppressed so i dont hurt my daughter's hearing!


What's that about F-Zero and a Super Scope?
 
2014-06-12 06:52:26 AM  
You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.
 
2014-06-12 06:53:20 AM  

WraithSama: Yaw String: Dad did well. Mom sounds like a liability.

No kidding, especially since her daughter was the human shield.  I'm sure the daughter is delighted that her dad is such a great shot; and that her mom is that bad instead of almost good enough.  But seriously, though, if I were in that situation, I would never have enough confidence in my aim to shoot at a target who is using my child as a shield.


The article doesn't  indicate which guy had the daughter. It sort of indicates they were coming through the door. Depending on the size of the 17 year old, she probably didn't  cover much of the one guy, and probably didn't cover any of the other. The article doesn't really spell out the order  in which they were shot. Dad probably opened up on the one  that was open, then switched to the other when/if he panicked and opened himself up.

Mostly guesses on my part.
 
2014-06-12 06:54:00 AM  

danielscissorhands: Daily Fail Headline:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

That wasn't very nice of the father to use his daughter as a human shield.


Well, he was shooting dead armed robbers, so I don't think there was much chance they'd fight back. It's the UN-dead robbers you really have to be wary of.
 
2014-06-12 06:56:40 AM  
Shoot the glass
 
2014-06-12 06:58:57 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


And the problem is what?
 
2014-06-12 07:00:57 AM  

Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.


Well, everybody knows that the presence of a gun or not isn't the issue. Dad could've done the same actions with a knife, or so I've been led to believe.
 
2014-06-12 07:02:45 AM  
This story is fake. I learned in the other thread that a good guy with a gun never wins.
 
2014-06-12 07:05:43 AM  

TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!


Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.
 
2014-06-12 07:09:10 AM  
The last thing the criminal saw..
ts2.mm.bing.net
 
2014-06-12 07:22:20 AM  

WraithSama: But seriously, though, if I were in that situation, I would never have enough confidence in my aim to shoot at a target who is using my child as a shield


Spend the $150-200 on a laser and get to the range once a month. Drink 3 Five Hour Energys 20 minutes before you hit the range to simulate the adrinaline rush.

http://www.crimsontracelaser.com/

/but holy shiat, I can't imagine pulling the trigger either
 
2014-06-12 07:26:39 AM  
www.film.com
 
2014-06-12 07:27:12 AM  
This man should be charged with a hate crime. He obviously hated these poor individuals. The whole family is probably racists. The daughter probably looked at the gentlemen disrespectfully and caused this whole incident. So she should be charged with inciting a riot. The wife is the hero here because she tried not to hurt anyone and was probably forced to shoot by her evil husband, who's probably a super racist and a woman hater.
As a proud liberal I would NEVER allow firearms near my house. Those things are dangerous killing machines and kill people indiscriminately whenever the device feels like going off. If guns were outlawed this incident would've never happened because those gentlemen would never use something illegal to force fellow Americans to do something. If guns were outlawed, those gentleman would have to get jobs and become contributing members of society.
This family, probably racists, should've acted more appropriately and the lives of these 2 poor souls would've been spared. Think of their poor families that now have to deal with the loss.
As a proud democrat that believes strongly in constitution, except the dumb parts, I would've handled the situation differently. I would've asked my wife to call 911 and while waiting for the cops that are always parked within seconds of mine and everyone else's location. I would've informed the gentleman that committing this crime would probably prevent them from legally purchasing firearms in the future. I would've explained that I voted for obama, but not because of his race. I would've cried and whimpered and told them where all my valuables are located. I would've offered up my daughters and the wife's, depending on her looks, sex parts. I would've offered to take one of the gentlemen to my ATM while the other stayed with my family and watched TV and ate snacks and had participated in civil intelligent conversation. Or, I would've grabbed the wife, escaped out the back door and called 911. Hopefully the cops get there before any real stuff goes down. If not, we can always get more stuff and if need be, produce another kid. Maybe even adopt some of those border crossing kids from South America.
As an liberal, that's what I would do. Please give generously to the mike bloomberg anti gun nut campaign.
 
2014-06-12 07:33:17 AM  
OK, since, like all gun threads, we've abandoned reason for madness in this thread, let me ask you this:  What's the scoreboard for

daughters saved from home invaders by gun-toting dad

vs.

daughters shot by accident when coming home late/unexpectedly by gun-toting dad?

(Bonus adult son killed after mistaken for burglar)
 
2014-06-12 07:34:02 AM  

stonelotus: "The girl's mother, also 34, fired shots using her gun but did not hit either man,"

[i1207.photobucket.com image 324x304]


This was subtle and hilarious to me. Thank you.
 
2014-06-12 07:35:57 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


I guess if someone was holding your daughter hostage with a gun to her head, you'd be OK with them executing her while you stood by twiddling your thumbs.  You would probably be next.
 
2014-06-12 07:37:23 AM  
How not to have a hostage:
static.ddmcdn.com
There is about 50% of your body exposed, and a clean line of sight to your head. If you get someone who spends a little range time each month, they can pop you easy.

Correct way
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
Body covered by hostage, minimal face exposure. Edgar doing it right.
 
2014-06-12 07:40:13 AM  
They was good boys.  Ain't no reason to shoot nobody
 
2014-06-12 07:40:18 AM  

Livingroom: BravadoGT: Livingroom: AR15 pistol with EoTech,

You need a SigTac forearm brace for it!  Sure, in a pinch you might sidle that stock up to your shoulder and fire it like a short-barreled rifle, but it's legally still just a brace on a pistol.

[d2444os31gbwts.cloudfront.net image 590x300]

i've got a c93 pistol with collapsible stock registered as my sbr, but irons only. no optic on it.



media.liveauctiongroup.net
I just attach my holster to my C96. C&R, baby. No SBR stamp.
 
2014-06-12 07:42:26 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: It just goes to show you that you've probably made some pretty bad choices in your life if you have a kid at 17 years old. One of those choices will probably be deciding to live in an area where people will kidnap your kid outside your doorstep.


-1.  Nice try.
 
2014-06-12 07:43:31 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


He is NOT Judge Judy and executioner!
 
2014-06-12 07:46:16 AM  
CSB- I rode my bike by the police shooting range and I knew the chief so I stopped and he bade me take some shots. They had a paper human target with a bowling pin dangling in front of it. He said the target was the bad guy and the bowling pin was the hostage. I figured, I'm not that great of a shot, I'll just aim loosely at the pin and miss, hitting the paper target. So I hit the pin on the first shot.
 
2014-06-12 07:47:08 AM  
Doesn't this seem fishy to anyone else?  2 guys want into a specific house, so they grab a girl to force her to open the door, and 2 armed parents are waiting for them?  This doesn't sound like a robbery.  Hostage taking is a big deal.  This sounds like they wanted in to that specific house, and had a good idea what might be waiting for them.  Sounds to me like this was the result of something illegal, like a fight between rival drug dealers.
 
2014-06-12 07:47:11 AM  

OhioUGrad: Apparently the robbers were 1. Horrible shots 2. Not good at using a shield the size of a human


They probably figured that taking the girl hostage was enough to get the parents to do exactly what they want. That's how it works in movies: a criminal takes a hostage and the good guys surrender instead of shooting. They thought they had a surefire way to gain the parents' compliance.

Plus, we don't know if both of them had guns and which of them was killed. It's possible the dad shot the non hostage-taker first, the one without the human shield. That would have been the smart move. And again, we don't know what happened next. The hostage taker could have been so surprised by a person actually shooting back ("But I'm holding your daughter hostage. You're supposed to surrender!") that the girl was able to get away, and in that moment of surprise dad was able to get a few shots at him as well.

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


And what should he have done? Because I think he did exactly the right thing. He is not only legally in the right, but morally as well. If you disagree, then by all means, explain what the proper course of action should have been?
 
2014-06-12 07:47:23 AM  

OhioUGrad: Apparently the robbers were 1. Horrible shots 2. Not good at using a shield the size of a human


Hey, saw the photos? The daughter would have to have been the size of Shamu to shield those two.
 
2014-06-12 07:47:57 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


Not quite up to "hurr-durr" standards.  4/10
 
2014-06-12 07:48:46 AM  
Excellent Gun Control
 
2014-06-12 07:50:20 AM  
If he has a full health bar AND a shield, you shoot the medic so the big bruiser can't recover. Duh.
 
2014-06-12 07:50:36 AM  
Must have learned how to shoot in the core.
 
2014-06-12 07:50:57 AM  

chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.


But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?
 
2014-06-12 07:50:59 AM  

No Such Agency: OK, since, like all gun threads, we've abandoned reason for madness in this thread, let me ask you this:  What's the scoreboard for
daughters saved from home invaders by gun-toting dad
vs.
daughters shot by accident when coming home late/unexpectedly by gun-toting dad?
(Bonus adult son killed after mistaken for burglar)


Has anyone mentioned that this is a repeat? Or do the success stories now get twice the credit? Need to even it out somehow, I guess.
 
2014-06-12 07:55:03 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-12 07:58:33 AM  

Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.


Wear a rubber? No daughter, no human shield, no robbery.
 
2014-06-12 07:59:18 AM  

Launch Code: This man should be charged with a hate crime. He obviously hated these poor individuals. The whole family is probably racists. The daughter probably looked at the gentlemen disrespectfully and caused this whole incident. So she should be charged with inciting a riot. The wife is the hero here because she tried not to hurt anyone and was probably forced to shoot by her evil husband, who's probably a super racist and a woman hater.
As a proud liberal I would NEVER allow firearms near my house. Those things are dangerous killing machines and kill people indiscriminately whenever the device feels like going off. If guns were outlawed this incident would've never happened because those gentlemen would never use something illegal to force fellow Americans to do something. If guns were outlawed, those gentleman would have to get jobs and become contributing members of society.
This family, probably racists, should've acted more appropriately and the lives of these 2 poor souls would've been spared. Think of their poor families that now have to deal with the loss.
As a proud democrat that believes strongly in constitution, except the dumb parts, I would've handled the situation differently. I would've asked my wife to call 911 and while waiting for the cops that are always parked within seconds of mine and everyone else's location. I would've informed the gentleman that committing this crime would probably prevent them from legally purchasing firearms in the future. I would've explained that I voted for obama, but not because of his race. I would've cried and whimpered and told them where all my valuables are located. I would've offered up my daughters and the wife's, depending on her looks, sex parts. I would've offered to take one of the gentlemen to my ATM while the other stayed with my family and watched TV and ate snacks and had participated in civil intelligent conversation. Or, I would've grabbed the wife, escaped out the back door and called 911. Hopefully the cops ...


You obviously know nothing of firearms. They don't just 'go off', you have to pull the trigger to make that happen. And last I checked, looking at someone 'disprespectfully', does not give them legal authority to hurt you. And maybe you're lucky enough to live next to a police station, but most people arn't. Sometimes the cops take hours to show up. And what kind of person would offer his daughter up for sex to save his own life? You gotta bargin that shiat man. She's a 17 year old hot piece of ass. And white. I bet you could trade her for 3 gold chains. Each. Just turn that robbery into a business opportunity. Say something like "Sure, you *could* rob me and rape my daughter. But then the police get involved, and the news will be all over since she's white. Or....I could *sell* her to you, and then you can take your time and have *no* cops. Your call. Good choice. You mind if I film it, while I beat off? I'll stand in the corner, and I won't be a bother." See, you're part of the problem. A bunch of damn liberals who think everything should be given away for free to the less fortunate.
 
2014-06-12 07:59:47 AM  

Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?


Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.
 
2014-06-12 08:00:46 AM  

rosemary's baby daddy: They was good boys.  Ain't no reason to shoot nobody


Yeah, they were just turning their lives aroundtm
 
2014-06-12 08:01:02 AM  
There must be a malfunction. The "dumbass could have gotten his child killed" tag came up as "Hero".
 
2014-06-12 08:04:23 AM  

phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.


Let's skip the notion of sides for a moment, sit down rationally, and point out a couple things.
1. Everybody had guns. The robbers, the mother, the father.
2. The robbers were holding a gun to the daughter's head while using her as a shield. Presumably that indicates point blank, unmissable range. And if they actually wanted to carry out their threat, at any time, they could've.
3. The parents shot at the robbers 'as they came through the door'. One was accurate enough to miss the teen, one wasn't accurate enough to hit the teen.

Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen. How could easily it have been the teen that died?

Is that the responsible gun ownership you want to idealize?

Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.
 
2014-06-12 08:04:37 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.


So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?
 
2014-06-12 08:04:39 AM  
So they had the daughter when they were both 17.   Well, at least they're still together.
 
2014-06-12 08:05:46 AM  
Go "Family Style" on them and shoot them both.
 
2014-06-12 08:05:54 AM  

No Such Agency: OK, since, like all gun threads, we've abandoned reason for madness in this thread


Tell me, "friend", when did Farkuman the Wise abandon reason for madness?

/Oh, wait, it was always madness, wasn't it?
 
2014-06-12 08:07:41 AM  

AteMyBrain: There must be a malfunction. The "dumbass could have gotten his child killed" tag came up as "Hero".


What?  You don't shoot at your loved ones?
 
2014-06-12 08:08:09 AM  
The girl's mother, also 34, fired shots using her gun but did not hit either man,

well, duh
 
2014-06-12 08:08:17 AM  

starsrift: Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen


Sure they could've.  A dead hostage is always the ideal bargaining chip.
 
2014-06-12 08:10:33 AM  
Thank goodness it ended with the suspects in custody or dead, with no civilian casualties.

My personal opinion is if they take a hostage, they have lost. Their mobility is now limited, and if surrounded, they can threaten to kill the hostage... at which point they get riddled with bullets themselves. IIRC, if a hostage taker tells a police officer to drop their weapons, aren't they trained to refuse since the officers now have the advantage?
 
2014-06-12 08:10:36 AM  
Oh, look. A jerkoff thread for all the wannabe he-men who sit around beating off to the thought of getting in a gunfight in their front yard.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Go get 'em you mighty heroes of the jizz-stained keyboard.
 
2014-06-12 08:14:50 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.



Good for him.
 
2014-06-12 08:15:27 AM  

starsrift: Let's skip the notion of sides for a moment, sit down rationally, and point out a couple things.
1. Everybody had guns. The robbers, the mother, the father.
2. The robbers were holding a gun to the daughter's head while using her as a shield. Presumably that indicates point blank, unmissable range. And if they actually wanted to carry out their threat, at any time, they could've.
3. The parents shot at the robbers 'as they came through the door'. One was accurate enough to miss the teen, one wasn't accurate enough to hit the teen.

Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen. How could easily it have been the teen that died?

Is that the responsible gun ownership you want to idealize?

Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


Tell me you're kidding.
 
2014-06-12 08:16:28 AM  
Let off some steam, Bennett.
 
2014-06-12 08:16:54 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?


I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.
 
2014-06-12 08:19:00 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


Judge Dadd!
 
2014-06-12 08:19:06 AM  

UseUrHeadFred: I give my daughter the "kill" command. Then I take the dead robber's wallet and have an ice cream cone with his money.


Eta Kooram Nah Smech!
 
2014-06-12 08:19:14 AM  
www.betterlivingthroughbeowulf.com
 
2014-06-12 08:19:27 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.


Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.
 
2014-06-12 08:25:14 AM  

starsrift: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Let's skip the notion of sides for a moment, sit down rationally, and point out a couple things.
1. Everybody had guns. The robbers, the mother, the father.
2. The robbers were holding a gun to the daughter's head while using her as a shield. Presumably that indicates point blank, unmissable range. And if they actually wanted to carry out their threat, at any time, they could've.
3. The parents shot at the robbers 'as they came through the door'. One was accurate enough to miss the teen, one wasn't accurate enough to hit the teen.

Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen. How could easily it have been the teen that died?

Is that the responsible gun ownership you want to idealize?

Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


I'll bite.

In the other thread regarding the gentleman who lost his life confronting the 2 cop killers in Vegas, the gun grabbers kept reiterating that we could only judge his actions based on the end result. Of course, this meant Wilcox was an idiot for confronting the gunmen because in hindsight, they were only targeting cops. It didn't matter that that information was unavailable to the terrified shoppers in walmart at the time.

Using that same gun grabber logic applied to this situation, we come to the conclusion that this guy is a hero and guns saved the day.

I believe that for different reasons of course, mainly because these two scumbag robbers won't be able to terrorize any more victims. Sometimes it's better that these people get removed from the gene pool.
 
2014-06-12 08:27:04 AM  

danielscissorhands: Daily Fail Headline:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

That wasn't very nice of the father to use his daughter as a human shield.


And was it really necessary to continue using her as a shield after the robbers were dead? We'll set aside his decision to shoot dead robbers in the first place.
 
2014-06-12 08:29:49 AM  
phenn:
[Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.]

Tell me you're kidding.


Hey, here in Canada entire street gangs share one gun, or rent one from another gang when it's time to menace or shoot someone.  Things seem to have gone a bit full retard lately (we've had almost ten shootings this month) but overall the supply/demand situation is a LOT different for criminals here because firearms are so restricted.
 
2014-06-12 08:31:09 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.


Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.
 
2014-06-12 08:31:42 AM  
Shoot the hostage.
 
2014-06-12 08:32:26 AM  
I hate guns, wouldn't feel comfortable sleeping in a house that had one, and generally feel they're misused and abused by a majority of the gun-owning population, but I don't see anything wrong in what this father did.  If you break into someone's home, armed, then use one of the occupants of the home as a human shield.....if you get shot, oh well.  It's not like this guy shot someone who just happened to be walking past his driveway.  This was a violent home invasion with his daughter as a hostage.

So yeah, hero tag is well-deserved, as is all the steak and beer the guy could ever consume for the rest of his natural life.
 
2014-06-12 08:34:38 AM  
Here's one of the rare times where I say Score 1 for the gun lobbies.  It's sad that it has to get to this point, but I've been estranged from my daughter for 5 years now, and if I thought I ever would have the opportunity to be a hero to her, I would take it in a heart beat.  Unfortunately, there are still quite a number of nefarious, unbalanced people out there with military grade weapons that will do what they want to do with them.  There's still a need to try to restrict, or outright ban, these items to those people.
 
2014-06-12 08:35:35 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.


Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.
 
2014-06-12 08:35:38 AM  

phenn: Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms [your emphasis]

Tell me you're kidding.


When you can't buy guns, where do bad guys get guns from?
How many robberies - home or storefront - are performed without guns even in the USA?
Sure, organized crime has access to firearms, but they also have access to grenades and other things. So no, I'm not kidding.

I notice you were unable to answer my question of whether or not this was responsible gun use. I can only assume that means that you agree that this is NOT responsible gun use, and hence, as I originally stated, a fantasy for 'gun nuts', though perhaps you disagree with my scatological descriptor of 'masturbatory'. Please enjoy the quibble, but I'm glad we agree.
 
2014-06-12 08:35:40 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.


Then there's this part from the same CDC report:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies," the CDC study, entitled "Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence," states.

Forgot the link to the report:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319
 
2014-06-12 08:38:18 AM  

starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.



With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!
 
2014-06-12 08:39:35 AM  

Spanky McStupid: Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.

Not quite up to "hurr-durr" standards.  4/10


I have a cold and I was awake later than I should have been at the time.
 
2014-06-12 08:39:49 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.


What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?
 
2014-06-12 08:40:38 AM  

give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!


Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!
 
2014-06-12 08:42:12 AM  

Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!


I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.
 
2014-06-12 08:43:09 AM  
Although I'm certain this report won't shed any new light on the debate, it at least gives an idea of what's going on in the world of home-invasion crime:

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1).

These estimates of burglary are based on a revised definition
of burglary from the standard classification in the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Historically, burglary is
classified as a property crime except when someone is home
during the burglary and a household member is attacked or
threatened. When someone is home during a burglary and
experiences violence, NCVS classification rules categorize the
victimization as a personal (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated and simple assault) rather than a property crime
(household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft). In this
report, the definition of household burglary includes
burglaries in which a household member was a victim of a
violent crime (see Methodology).

Highlights

*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.

*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.

*Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be
burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member
was present.

*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for
36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary.
 
2014-06-12 08:43:16 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.

What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?


Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.
 
2014-06-12 08:44:10 AM  

Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!


Yeah, if Dad had just tracked down the other asshole, and finished him off, it would have been an even bigger savings.

In this situation, it really doesn't matter what caused it. The father did what he was supposed to do, and ended the threat to his family.
 
2014-06-12 08:47:33 AM  

Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!


Yeah, no need to have police sharpshooters to rescue hostages either!

We can all gather round the campfire and sing koombaya together, hostage takers and all.

When you show no concern or respect for human life of another, don't be surprised when a protective father decides to do anything he can to preserve his family.

This was a good shoot. The hostage takers sealed their own fate. Don't want to die? How about not pointing a gun at some girls head to begin with.

God, we've got a bunch of pussies in here this morning.
 
2014-06-12 08:49:04 AM  

phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.


You wacked it, admit it.
 
2014-06-12 08:49:39 AM  

Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.


Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?
 
2014-06-12 08:50:42 AM  

starsrift: phenn: Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms [your emphasis]

Tell me you're kidding.

When you can't buy guns, where do bad guys get guns from?
How many robberies - home or storefront - are performed without guns even in the USA?
Sure, organized crime has access to firearms, but they also have access to grenades and other things. So no, I'm not kidding.

I notice you were unable to answer my question of whether or not this was responsible gun use. I can only assume that means that you agree that this is NOT responsible gun use, and hence, as I originally stated, a fantasy for 'gun nuts', though perhaps you disagree with my scatological descriptor of 'masturbatory'. Please enjoy the quibble, but I'm glad we agree.


Well, the 'responsible gun use' question struck me as rather stupid, so I chose to overlook that. OF COURSE breaking into someone's home or using their child as a human shield is not responsible. Clearly, you are oversimplifying in order to make your point.

Where do people get illegal guns? It's a shiatton easier than you think. Bad guys get them from their gangbanger and cartel friends. Very, VERY easily.

And, yet, you still haven't explained to me why you think a father who saved his daughter's life should be disarmed. Because you personally don't like firearms? You'll need to file that one under Too Damn Bad.

He acted swiftly and smartly and took the threat of murder out of his daughter's situation. THAT is the proper use or responsible use of a firearm.
 
2014-06-12 08:51:28 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.

What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?

Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.


My study?

That was a CDC study, ordered by President Obama after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.
 
2014-06-12 08:52:12 AM  
what if they are behind a humid shield?
gh-design.net
 
2014-06-12 08:53:29 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

Yeah, no need to have police sharpshooters to rescue hostages either!

We can all gather round the campfire and sing koombaya together, hostage takers and all.

When you show no concern or respect for human life of another, don't be surprised when a protective father decides to do anything he can to preserve his family.

This was a good shoot. The hostage takers sealed their own fate. Don't want to die? How about not pointing a gun at some girls head to begin with.

God, we've got a bunch of pussies in here this morning.


Yep. Dad saved his daughter. Had to kill someone to do it. Not the happiest about people dying.

Sorry if you are totally happy killing people. I would prefer we didn't if it could be avoided. And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.
 
2014-06-12 08:53:40 AM  
And if you're going to dismiss those results, maybe the NRA is correct in fighting against using federal dollars for these studies? You're going to dismiss the results anyway. Fiscal responsibility and all that.
 
2014-06-12 08:54:11 AM  
Elliot8654:
Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.

Specifics. Seeing as how you're such a better researcher than the National Research Council, I'm sure you can do much better than "Because I say so and it's all an NRA conspiracy".
 
2014-06-12 08:55:34 AM  

joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: chrylis: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

Actually true. Successful defensive gun use in the United States is somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 million annually, with most of those not requiring firing the weapon. But don't let the truth get in the way of your truthiness.

But if the gun isn't used, then how does that classify as defensive gun use?

And where do you get the figure of 2.5 million annually?

Because you don't always need to fire your weapon for it to be effective. Bad guys don't particularly like to get shot either, and the smart ones will about face and GTFO when confronted by an armed victim clearing leather. No need to pull he trigger at that point.

So its a brandishing of a weapon? Would a decent sized knife work? Or a club? Does it have to be a gun?

Where does the 2.5 million successful uses come from? If a guy goes to rob a store, but a cop is inside, and he doesn't Rob the store, since the cop has a gun does that count in the 2.5 million?

I suppose it depends.

If the victim is an elderly individual or woman, I don't think displaying anything other than a firearm is going to deter many criminals. The criminal may have had the size and strength advantage, but the smaller victim has now turned the tables in their favor with a firearm.

The 2.5 million number I believe is high. In actuality it's probably more around the few hundred thousand mark. Still good enough justification for me.

Do you actually have a source for that "few hundred thousand" statistic?

If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Sure, the CDC if that's a good enough source for you.

"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

As for your knife comment, grandma may not have enough physical strength to use a knife effectively. But I've seen many an old lady or gentleman be able to fire a .38 at the range with no issues. You know damn well that a lady with a blade is not nearly as deterring as a lady with a snub nose .38 aimed center mass.

Go check out the data on the NRA's quest to actually prevent there being comprehensive research into gun violence. Might surprise you.

What does that have to do with the CDC report I linked to which was completed after the Sandy Hook tragedy?

Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.

My study?

That was a CDC study, ordered by President Obama after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.


I don't have a narrative.

But I do have a degree in economics with training in econometrics and statistics.

Don't care who ordered that study, it's methodology is mediocre, and it's confidence intervals with its range of data make it almost impossible to draw definitive conclusions.
 
2014-06-12 08:57:28 AM  

Elliot8654: Yep. Dad saved his daughter. Had to kill someone to do it. Not the happiest about people dying.

Sorry if you are totally happy killing people. I would prefer we didn't if it could be avoided. And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.


The chance of them letting her go was also not guaranteed and a father's first and foremost responsibility is to protect his children.

No one is happy about killing. But, if it's them or her and he chose them, I'd say it was the best possibly outcome. They shouldn't have shown up. THEY are the criminals.

Why is that so hard for some people to compute?
 
2014-06-12 08:58:32 AM  

Elliot8654: And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.


why, because logic? as in the hostage takers were acting in a logical way and they would continue to do so?
 
2014-06-12 09:00:02 AM  

Son of Thunder: Elliot8654:
Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.

Specifics. Seeing as how you're such a better researcher than the National Research Council, I'm sure you can do much better than "Because I say so and it's all an NRA conspiracy".


I hope you understand, this subject is practically impossible to objectively study, for several reasons:

1) the nra has lobbied to add major roadblocks and outright prevent research into this matter.
2) There is no way to measure effective "deterrence" by firearm, where someone decides not to commit a crime due to the potential of a firearm.
3) events can only occur once in the real world, making trials of "would a gun be more or less beneficial" impossible, as a retrial of events can not happen.
 
2014-06-12 09:00:15 AM  

phenn: No one is happy about killing.


I must dispute that claim.
 
2014-06-12 09:00:46 AM  
 
2014-06-12 09:00:59 AM  

phenn: Elliot8654: Yep. Dad saved his daughter. Had to kill someone to do it. Not the happiest about people dying.

Sorry if you are totally happy killing people. I would prefer we didn't if it could be avoided. And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.

The chance of them letting her go was also not guaranteed and a father's first and foremost responsibility is to protect his children.

No one is happy about killing. But, if it's them or her and he chose them, I'd say it was the best possibly outcome. They shouldn't have shown up. THEY are the criminals.

Why is that so hard for some people to compute?


I get it.
Dad defends daughter.
Fine.

Doesn't mean I have to like it or be happy about people dying.
 
2014-06-12 09:01:10 AM  

soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?


Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.
 
2014-06-12 09:01:36 AM  

Dimensio: phenn: No one is happy about killing.

I must dispute that claim.


Fair enough. No one sane is happy about killing. I have no doubt this father takes zero pleasure in what happened. Relief maybe, but not pleasure.
 
2014-06-12 09:03:07 AM  

phenn: Dimensio: phenn: No one is happy about killing.

I must dispute that claim.

Fair enough. No one sane is happy about killing. I have no doubt this father takes zero pleasure in what happened. Relief maybe, but not pleasure.


Check out gang violence and how murdering an opposing gang member is a cause for a celebration.
 
2014-06-12 09:03:08 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-12 09:03:24 AM  

Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.


If they had done that, I can almost guarantee you that girl would be dead right now. The second LE shows up, it would have gone from home invasion to all-out shoot out. Seriously. The father acted properly. The criminals did not.
 
2014-06-12 09:03:41 AM  

danielscissorhands: Daily Fail Headline:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

That wasn't very nice of the father to use his daughter as a human shield.


And unnecessary, as the armed robbers were already dead when the father shot them. And why was he invading their home?

Grammar twitch, hell; that headline gave me a farking seizure.
 
2014-06-12 09:04:47 AM  

phenn: Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.

If they had done that, I can almost guarantee you that girl would be dead right now. The second LE shows up, it would have gone from home invasion to all-out shoot out. Seriously. The father acted properly. The criminals did not.


Um, dad made it a shootout.
He just, like Han, shot first.
 
2014-06-12 09:05:15 AM  

phenn: Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.

If they had done that, I can almost guarantee you that girl would be dead right now. The second LE shows up, it would have gone from home invasion to all-out shoot out. Seriously. The father acted properly. The criminals did not.


Where in the article were either the robbers or the daughter described as being dogs?
 
2014-06-12 09:05:28 AM  

Elliot8654: phenn: Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.

If they had done that, I can almost guarantee you that girl would be dead right now. The second LE shows up, it would have gone from home invasion to all-out shoot out. Seriously. The father acted properly. The criminals did not.

Um, dad made it a shootout.
He just, like Han, shot first.


It's not a shootout if the other party doesn't fire back.
 
2014-06-12 09:05:52 AM  

Elliot8654: Um, dad made it a shootout.
He just, like Han, shot first.


Not at all. He diffused the situation. He put a stop to it.
 
2014-06-12 09:06:54 AM  
Considering how screwed up society is. I was expecting the father to be arrested for murder, and the daughter to be brought up on charges of being an accessory.
 
2014-06-12 09:06:59 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Call Liam Neeson?


Why?  It sounds like dad was quite capable of handling the situation.

One bad guy dead, another bad guy shot, daughter unhurt.

That's some seriously fine shooting.

TheGregiss: Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!


Civilians using firearms to protect themselves are far more common than mass shootings.  They just don't get round the clock, live from the scene media coverage.
 
2014-06-12 09:07:11 AM  

Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.


Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?
 
2014-06-12 09:08:35 AM  

Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?


He's been sarcastitrolling all morning. You just bit, as did I yesterday. Haha
 
2014-06-12 09:08:42 AM  
FTFH: Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion

So, the father is shooting armed robbers who are already dead, while using his teenage daughter as a human shield while he is conducting a home invasion?

/someone got paid to write that headline.
 
2014-06-12 09:08:44 AM  

Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?


"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?
 
2014-06-12 09:09:47 AM  

stirfrybry: white knighting for thugs who took a hostage. You farkers are unreal


You need to search for posts by Dimensio.  You've seriously misread him.

/He's very skilled.  So much so that only the highest quality sarcasm meters work.
 
2014-06-12 09:10:01 AM  

starsrift: phenn: Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms [your emphasis]

Tell me you're kidding.

When you can't buy guns, where do bad guys get guns from?
How many robberies - home or storefront - are performed without guns even in the USA?
Sure, organized crime has access to firearms, but they also have access to grenades and other things. So no, I'm not kidding.

I notice you were unable to answer my question of whether or not this was responsible gun use. I can only assume that means that you agree that this is NOT responsible gun use, and hence, as I originally stated, a fantasy for 'gun nuts', though perhaps you disagree with my scatological descriptor of 'masturbatory'. Please enjoy the quibble, but I'm glad we agree.



First off, your scenario is based on many assumptions provided by TFA and you. In that situation you can't give the intruder the benefit of the doubt, or just assume he doesn't want to hurt anyone, most people can't even tell when their being lied to in a normal situation.The end result is his daughter is unharmed, and the bad guy who chose to put everyone's lives in danger, including his own, is dead. And the other criminal is shot and in custody (who was released on murder charges last Jan). The father was a crack-shot perhaps with some training, if not a good bit of practice. The mother obviously didn't help atleast given the details.

What makes you think the firearms the criminals were using weren't illegal? You can outlaw guns like drugs, criminals will still get them. They don't recognize any laws imposed on them. How you gonna be a tru G if you ain't got no gat? If you're anybody in a street gang you got a gun. The hip hop culture idolizes guns, and the gang violence associated with it seems to be the prime source of gun violence. A weekend in Detroit can trump a mass shooting.
This also makes an example out of the criminal to other would be criminals...don't mess with an innocent guys family or house, your ass may get shot and killed.

I'd be ok if we could magically make all guns vanish, but if you make all guns illegal tomorrow, you are only disarming everyone except dangerous white militia groups and black gangs who do not recognize gun laws imposed on them.
 
2014-06-12 09:11:41 AM  

Elliot8654: Son of Thunder: Elliot8654:
Your study has a range of 6x it's base study value, and has methodology which, if I had used anything like that for my masters thesis, would have gotten my research shot down like a ww2 fighter plane.

Specifics. Seeing as how you're such a better researcher than the National Research Council, I'm sure you can do much better than "Because I say so and it's all an NRA conspiracy".

I hope you understand, this subject is practically impossible to objectively study, for several reasons:

1) the nra has lobbied to add major roadblocks and outright prevent research into this matter.
2) There is no way to measure effective "deterrence" by firearm, where someone decides not to commit a crime due to the potential of a firearm.
3) events can only occur once in the real world, making trials of "would a gun be more or less beneficial" impossible, as a retrial of events can not happen.


So you don't actually see any specific methodological flaws, you just reject the entire approach because criminological research is hard.

You must have specialized in the kind of economics that don't involve looking at actual human behavior.
 
2014-06-12 09:12:29 AM  

Dimensio: Dimensio: 

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.


Not at all.  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
 
2014-06-12 09:12:54 AM  

Elliot8654: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?


The burglars/hostage takers made their own bed.

Had they ceased life threatening action earlier, they would've got their day in court.

So yeah, I agree with the other poster too.
 
2014-06-12 09:13:27 AM  
www.texasfred.net
 
2014-06-12 09:14:27 AM  

Elliot8654: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?


You got it, pal.  In this situation they didn't have any rights, except to a punishment that was neither cruel or unusual.  They really deserved worse.  But keep on trollin' by all means.
 
2014-06-12 09:15:50 AM  

Elliot8654: "Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?


the amendments are restrictions on government power they aren't restrictions on an individual protecting his family from a home invasion.
 
2014-06-12 09:16:35 AM  

lenfromak: Dimensio: Dimensio: 

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.

Not at all.  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0


BOOM!
 
2014-06-12 09:17:41 AM  

Livingroom: quickly try to decide what to kill them with, my AR15 pistol with EoTech, my AR15 rifle with ACOG, or my H&K91 with Fero Z-24 scope. or, go hardcore and use one of my glocks. either way, i'm going suppressed so i dont hurt my daughter's hearing!


That's the problem
Too many decisions to make
Katana
 
2014-06-12 09:17:41 AM  
Brick-House:

And the dead good guy who went back into the wal mart and got himself killed?

Or the fort hood shooter who was surrounded by good guy?

How do I tell who is a good guy with a gun and who is a bad guy with a gun before the shooting begins?
 
2014-06-12 09:18:25 AM  

Headso: Elliot8654: "Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

the amendments are restrictions on government power they aren't restrictions on an individual protecting his family from a home invasion.


Which is funny because people like him would be the first to point that out when it comes to duck dynasty/A&E or similar situations.
 
2014-06-12 09:18:39 AM  

Headso: Elliot8654: "Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

the amendments are restrictions on government power they aren't restrictions on an individual protecting his family from a home invasion.


No. They are ensuring our rights, like the right to a speedy trial for all citizens.
 
2014-06-12 09:19:29 AM  
 
2014-06-12 09:19:54 AM  

lenfromak: Dimensio: Dimensio:
Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.

Not at all.  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0


That they are not accountable in any way in their duty to protect members of the public does not mean that protection of members of the public is not one of their job duties.

/This is not a strawman misrepresentation. Another Farker actually presented that argument, and was serious.
 
2014-06-12 09:20:20 AM  

Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: "Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

the amendments are restrictions on government power they aren't restrictions on an individual protecting his family from a home invasion.

No. They are ensuring our rights, like the right to a speedy trial for all citizens.


I'd say these two geniuses got a speedy trial by fire, wouldn't you?
 
2014-06-12 09:20:29 AM  

Elliot8654: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?


If someone is captured alive by law enforcement, they are have the right to a trial.  The constutition doesn't guarantee you the right to live through a gunfight when you invade someones home with a weapon.

You seem to think that the criminals right to a trial is supposed to supercede the right of self defense. It doesn't, hence why no charges were files against the father.
 
2014-06-12 09:21:03 AM  
I couldn't finish reading the article over the sounds of the NRA board of directors orgasming.  I'm sure they'll want to change the focus from mass shootings to this success story.
 
2014-06-12 09:21:06 AM  

JustGetItRight: Elliot8654: If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Have you ever fired a gun?

http://gunsnfreedom.com/72-year-old-woman-shoots-intruder-who-was-be at ing-her-friend-with-a-bat/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/10/22/very-afraid-66-year-old-w om an-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/
http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1023/63-year-old-woman-shoots-and-ki ll s-armed-intruder-.html#.U5mokihNx_E
http://abc7news.com/archive/7995072/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=775HZwognE0
http://thetandd.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/elderly-woman-awaken s- to-find-intruder-shoots-at-him/article_d43aef04-2a25-11e3-ad97-001a4bc f887a.html

First page of a google search.  Six examples, aged 63-85.  All managed it just fine.


Yep, in a gun range under controlled circumstances with all the time they need.

Look at the accuracy rate of trained officers under stress. Tell me a random senior citizen under threat could do better.
 
2014-06-12 09:22:05 AM  

JustGetItRight: Elliot8654: If you have an elderly woman who can't raise a knife, how is she supposed to use a firearm properly? It would break her wrist first.

Have you ever fired a gun?

http://gunsnfreedom.com/72-year-old-woman-shoots-intruder-who-was-be at ing-her-friend-with-a-bat/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/10/22/very-afraid-66-year-old-w om an-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/
http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1023/63-year-old-woman-shoots-and-ki ll s-armed-intruder-.html#.U5mokihNx_E
http://abc7news.com/archive/7995072/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=775HZwognE0
http://thetandd.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/elderly-woman-awaken s- to-find-intruder-shoots-at-him/article_d43aef04-2a25-11e3-ad97-001a4bc f887a.html

First page of a google search.  Six examples, aged 63-85.  All managed it just fine.


My 74-year old mother is rather skippy with a .308 and a 1911. At least when it comes to killing paper, that is.
 
2014-06-12 09:22:29 AM  

sbchamp: Livingroom: quickly try to decide what to kill them with, my AR15 pistol with EoTech, my AR15 rifle with ACOG, or my H&K91 with Fero Z-24 scope. or, go hardcore and use one of my glocks. either way, i'm going suppressed so i dont hurt my daughter's hearing!

That's the problem
Too many decisions to make
Katana


Of the four firearms that I own, I own a silencer for only one of them, thus making my decision simple:
I would hold fire; I have no children, nor am I even married, thus having my "daughter" held hostage would be indication of some form of psychosis.
 
2014-06-12 09:22:41 AM  

Dimensio: Spanky McStupid: Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.

Not quite up to "hurr-durr" standards.  4/10

I have a cold and I was awake later than I should have been at the time.


You did fine.  Snagged at least a half dozen in just  a few minutes.
 
2014-06-12 09:23:35 AM  

Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: "Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

the amendments are restrictions on government power they aren't restrictions on an individual protecting his family from a home invasion.

No. They are ensuring our rights, like the right to a speedy trial for all citizens.


They ensure the government can't legislate them away.... "congress shall make no law'... "shall not be infringed" .... are examples of the type of verbiage in the amendments.
 
2014-06-12 09:23:43 AM  

trevzie: Elliot8654: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

If someone is captured alive by law enforcement, they are have the right to a trial.  The constutition doesn't guarantee you the right to live through a gunfight when you invade someones home with a weapon.

You seem to think that the criminals right to a trial is supposed to supercede the right of self defense. It doesn't, hence why no charges were files against the father.


Ya know what? Fine.
I think I need to move back to England.
I find it absolutely amazing that this country is so absolutely gung ho for bring able to shoot other people.

Even if America did license and control guns, from the sounds of it you would just invent new ways to kill each other.
 
2014-06-12 09:24:37 AM  

Elliot8654: Ya know what? Fine.
I think I need to move back to England.
I find it absolutely amazing that this country is so absolutely gung ho for bring able to shoot other people.


You would certainly be safer in England, if your profession is armed robbery.
 
2014-06-12 09:26:59 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


And you have a problem with this? I know whose house I'm coming to when I want to steal some shiat. YOURS MOTHERFARKER!
 
2014-06-12 09:27:16 AM  

Elliot8654: trevzie: Elliot8654: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

If someone is captured alive by law enforcement, they are have the right to a trial.  The constutition doesn't guarantee you the right to live through a gunfight when you invade someones home with a weapon.

You seem to think that the criminals right to a trial is supposed to supercede the right of self defense. It doesn't, hence why no charges were files against the father.

Ya know what? Fine.
I think I need to move back to England.
I find it absolutely amazing that this country is so absolutely gung ho for bring able to shoot other people.

Even if America did license and control guns, from the sounds of it you would just invent new ways to kill each other.


Good.

I don't want people living here who think the rights of others to a fair trial supersedes my right to defend myself or family.

In the good ole USA, actions have consequences. Don't want to die? You can start by not being a shiatty person to begin with and don't threaten the lives of others. It's simple, really.
 
2014-06-12 09:28:07 AM  

Elliot8654: I think I need to move back to England.


shiningrocksoftware.com
 
2014-06-12 09:28:09 AM  

Dimensio: Elliot8654: Ya know what? Fine.
I think I need to move back to England.
I find it absolutely amazing that this country is so absolutely gung ho for bring able to shoot other people.

You would certainly be safer in England, if your profession is armed robbery.


How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.
 
2014-06-12 09:30:10 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: I think I need to move back to England.


Go look up all factors of societal health, and tell me America is still the best country ever.

The only "freedom" you have that the rest of the world doesn't is its so much easier to get a gun. Go look up what other countries have. Check out Germany.
 
2014-06-12 09:31:31 AM  

Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.


How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.
 
2014-06-12 09:32:36 AM  

Elliot8654: trevzie: Elliot8654: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

If someone is captured alive by law enforcement, they are have the right to a trial.  The constutition doesn't guarantee you the right to live through a gunfight when you invade someones home with a weapon.

You seem to think that the criminals right to a trial is supposed to supercede the right of self defense. It doesn't, hence why no charges were files against the father.

Ya know what? Fine.
I think I need to move back to England.
I find it absolutely amazing that this country is so absolutely gung ho for bring able to shoot other people.

Even if America did license and control guns, from the sounds of it you would just invent new ways to kill each other.


It's a good deterrent to home invasion, when you can legally be killed for it. I don't have a problem with it.  If the criminals have a problem with it, they might want to choose a different type of crime.
 
2014-06-12 09:33:35 AM  

Elliot8654: Look at the accuracy rate of trained officers under stress. Tell me a random senior citizen under threat could do better.


Actually, civilians (of all ages) do seem to do a better job of choosing to engage a bad guy that a lot of LE.

It is very, very hard to find cases where a civilian using a weapon to resist crime shoots an innocent bystander (I know of on in Texas, but no others).  It is, unfortunately, pretty easy to find examples of LE doing so.

I honestly don't know why.  It is probably a combination of civilians being more cautious when choosing to use their weapons (know they're not trained, no duty to act, fear of injury/lawsuit) and the fact that while a LEO might be trained and confident, depending on the state, he might only have to qualify once or twice a year and not get much range time unless he does it while off duty whereas many gun owners shoot far more often.
 
2014-06-12 09:33:49 AM  

phenn: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.

How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.


I get it. I get it. Defend your daughter.
It's the whole societal love affair with guns and power.

This one case isn't the point. What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's? Then your average family will be stocking anti tank rounds.

It's a big dumb escalation that is happening almost nowhere else in the world.
 
2014-06-12 09:35:30 AM  
I consider myself liberal, but it really pisses me off when other libs say the father should have called 911.

You have 2 choices in that situation: die, or shoot the piece of garbage.

There's nothing else. No intermediate step.

Proper gun control shown by mom and dad.

/never fired a gun
 
2014-06-12 09:35:33 AM  

Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.


Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

4.bp.blogspot.com

Thought not.

So...

sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk
 
2014-06-12 09:35:52 AM  

Witness99: Clearly, the right thing to do in a situation like this is to lock the door and call 911. When they break in, you call a "time out" because it's going to take the police 15 minutes to get there. You say calm down everybody, you don't want to do anything you would regret. Let's take a breather, have a beer and allow cooler heads to prevail. Also, would you mind leaving your firearms outside as this is a gun free zone (point to the sign to validate your claim).

This way, nobody gets killed, raped, hurt or robbed. You've done the civil thing rather than arrogantly appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner. And you've taught those two young men a lesson in manners, which they will need to legitimately attract the affections of those like your daughter.


That was beautiful.

Thank you.
 
2014-06-12 09:38:00 AM  

skozlaw: Oh, look. A jerkoff thread for all the wannabe he-men who sit around beating off to the thought of getting in a gunfight in their front yard.

Go get 'em you mighty heroes of the jizz-stained keyboard.


"Have you taken the picture? TAKE THE GODDAMN PICTURE."
 
2014-06-12 09:38:18 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...


You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.
 
2014-06-12 09:39:31 AM  

mdeesnuts: WraithSama: But seriously, though, if I were in that situation, I would never have enough confidence in my aim to shoot at a target who is using my child as a shield

Spend the $150-200 on a laser and get to the range once a month. Drink 3 Five Hour Energys 20 minutes before you hit the range to simulate the adrinaline rush.

http://www.crimsontracelaser.com/

/but holy shiat, I can't imagine pulling the trigger either


I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.
 
2014-06-12 09:43:03 AM  

Elliot8654: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Ya know what? Fine.
I think I need to move back to England.
I find it absolutely amazing that this country is so absolutely gung ho for bring able to shoot other people.

You would certainly be safer in England, if your profession is armed robbery.

How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.


And in England you will likely spend time in prison for defending yourself.  fark that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461346/Five-years-in-prison-f o r-acting-in-self-defence.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munir_Hussain_and_victims'_rights

You can go back to your "utopia"
 
2014-06-12 09:43:12 AM  

phenn: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.

How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.


Had the father simply allowed the men to go, they could have been arrested later and his daughter returned.
 
2014-06-12 09:44:26 AM  

Elliot8654: What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's


What with like a fishing vest or catchers chest protector like Lanza and the Aurora shooter?
 
2014-06-12 09:44:58 AM  

Dimensio: phenn: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.

How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.

Had the father simply allowed the men to go, they could have been arrested later and his daughter returned.


Thanks to you, I've been hyper vigilant about checking usernames before replying. Almost bit once again
 
2014-06-12 09:47:17 AM  

Elliot8654: Or the fort hood shooter who was surrounded by good guy?



Unarmed good guys.
You've never been on a military base, have you?
 
2014-06-12 09:47:43 AM  

starsrift: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Let's skip the notion of sides for a moment, sit down rationally, and point out a couple things.
1. Everybody had guns. The robbers, the mother, the father.
2. The robbers were holding a gun to the daughter's head while using her as a shield. Presumably that indicates point blank, unmissable range. And if they actually wanted to carry out their threat, at any time, they could've.
3. The parents shot at the robbers 'as they came through the door'. One was accurate enough to miss the teen, one wasn't accurate enough to hit the teen.

Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen. How could easily it have been the teen that died?

Is that the responsible gun ownership you want to idealize?

Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how ...


I found another house to target if I turn to a life of crime.
 
2014-06-12 09:48:37 AM  

Elliot8654: You don't have it here either.


You thought it necessary to point out that Ronald Regan doesn't really ride a Velociraptor, that is carrying an American flag, while carrying an RPG and shooting a H&K MP7... Riding through burning battlefields with F-22s flying by in the background?

Lol.
 
2014-06-12 09:50:43 AM  
campaignofshockandawe.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-12 09:51:13 AM  

Giltric: Elliot8654: What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's

What with like a fishing vest or catchers chest protector like Lanza and the Aurora shooter?


Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?
 
2014-06-12 09:52:53 AM  

Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's

What with like a fishing vest or catchers chest protector like Lanza and the Aurora shooter?

Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?


I recall the incident. I assume that such events are now extremely commonplace, thus the absence of any media reports of them.
 
2014-06-12 09:53:24 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: You don't have it here either.

You thought it necessary to point out that Ronald Regan doesn't really ride a Velociraptor, that is carrying an American flag, while carrying an RPG and shooting a H&K MP7... Riding through burning battlefields with F-22s flying by in the background?

Lol.


I have to point out that some Americans are delusional and think they are the only country that is really "free" and guns are the only thing that keep them free.

Oh, and that the earth is 6000 years old and humans were made exactly as we are by a deity who grants our wishes if we pray hard enough.

'Murica.
 
2014-06-12 09:55:23 AM  

Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.


We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)
 
2014-06-12 09:57:13 AM  

Dimensio: Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.


You could not be more wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Call the cops to come clean up the mess. In fact the less police involvement the better.
 
2014-06-12 09:57:49 AM  

Elliot8654: I have to point out that some Americans are delusional and think they are the only country that is really "free" and guns are the only thing that keep them free.


www.federaljack.com
 
2014-06-12 09:57:50 AM  

joness0154: God, we've got a bunch of pussies in here this morning.


Sorry, I don't measure my manhood by the number of people I'll claim to gun down if the opportunity arises.

It's hard to be a man when you're laying on the ground with your brains splattered all around.
 
2014-06-12 09:58:19 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)


Fortunately, the XD series of firearms is easily reassembled.

/I would likely not bring the threaded barrel, however.
 
2014-06-12 10:00:45 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)


what is does your company do? people pay to come in for some state mandated certification and you guys fark with them, sounds like a good place to avoid...
 
2014-06-12 10:01:24 AM  

Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's

What with like a fishing vest or catchers chest protector like Lanza and the Aurora shooter?

Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?


Yeah I remember the token armored badguy story.


I also remember when George Washington killed the British in their sleep on Christmas.

Now cops carry rifles in their patrol car to counter the odd armored badguy scenario.

What have you done to protect yourself from George Washington?

Improvise, adapt and overcome.
 
2014-06-12 10:01:38 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: I have to point out that some Americans are delusional and think they are the only country that is really "free" and guns are the only thing that keep them free.


This isn't a straw man. Talk to conservative NRA members. They honestly believe this. That without the 2nd amendment, our government would be a tyrannical dictatorship with slave camps.
 
2014-06-12 10:04:50 AM  

Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: You don't have it here either.

You thought it necessary to point out that Ronald Regan doesn't really ride a Velociraptor, that is carrying an American flag, while carrying an RPG and shooting a H&K MP7... Riding through burning battlefields with F-22s flying by in the background?

Lol.

I have to point out that some Americans are delusional and think they are the only country that is really "free" and guns are the only thing that keep them free.

Oh, and that the earth is 6000 years old and humans were made exactly as we are by a deity who grants our wishes if we pray hard enough.

'Murica.


Could be worse.  We could be the delusional crack dreams of a sleeping god. (random sci-fi/horror short story I read in the 80s).  When he woke up, everything and everyone turned into marijuana hallucinations
 
2014-06-12 10:07:00 AM  

Elliot8654: That without the 2nd amendment, our government would be a tyrannical dictatorship with slave camps.


Well, when OWS protested over banksters and wealth inequality a cop walked the line of them and sprayed them all in the face with mace like a bully douchebag and when people protested with guns at the Bundy ranch the government immediately caved and gave back the cattle.
 
2014-06-12 10:08:47 AM  

Dimensio: phenn: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.

How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.

Had the father simply allowed the men to go, they could have been arrested later and his daughter returned.


sure I'll bite....

Considering one of them has already committed murder, more likely they would have shot the father, mother, and younger brother.  Then, raped the daughter before executing her as well.  Then they would run off with whatever they could carry, lay low for a week or two, and then find some other unsuspecting family and do it all over again.  Might as well stick with what works!

One individuals right to due process does not trump another's rights to life, liberty, property, etc.  Unless you're advocating that every victim ever should just allow rape, murder, etc to happen.
 
2014-06-12 10:09:54 AM  

Headso: Elliot8654: That without the 2nd amendment, our government would be a tyrannical dictatorship with slave camps.

Well, when OWS protested over banksters and wealth inequality a cop walked the line of them and sprayed them all in the face with mace like a bully douchebag and when people protested with guns at the Bundy ranch the government immediately caved and gave back the cattle.


Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

Yeah. The answer is to break the law but do it with a lot of guns and play chicken with the feds. Great idea.
 
2014-06-12 10:10:58 AM  

Headso: what is does your company do?


Contract private security and executive protection services.

Headso: people pay to come in for some state mandated certification and you guys fark with them, sounds like a good place to avoid...


Well:

1) They are our employees.
2) I'm paying for them to take a class from my instructors.

We do have a pressing interest to make sure they meet the highest standards of capability and to identify and rectify any weaknesses there in.  And if you can't hack it, you aren't getting on one of the executive protection teams.  Plain and simple.  I have a product to guarantee the quality of, just like any other business.


Elliot8654: Talk to conservative NRA members. They honestly believe this.


You think the average NRA member believes that the United States is the only free nation in the world and it's only because the US has guns?

You know, I just got back from the Bianchi cup not to long ago.  This year I met some great competitors there from Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.  Mind 'splaining to us how all these non-Americans had guns?
 
2014-06-12 10:12:15 AM  

Elliot8654: phenn: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.

How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.

I get it. I get it. Defend your daughter.
It's the whole societal love affair with guns and power.

This one case isn't the point. What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's? Then your average family will be stocking anti tank rounds.

It's a big dumb escalation that is happening almost nowhere else in the world.


that's why an ar15 makes a good home defense gun - the rounds actually can pierce most body armor, but stop before entering your neighbor's house - better than many common handgun rounds.

no escalation necessary -

part of the reason us "gun nuts" got mad when the hoplophobes wanted to ban them.
 
2014-06-12 10:12:22 AM  

starsrift: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Let's skip the notion of sides for a moment, sit down rationally, and point out a couple things.
1. Everybody had guns. The robbers, the mother, the father.
2. The robbers were holding a gun to the daughter's head while using her as a shield. Presumably that indicates point blank, unmissable range. And if they actually wanted to carry out their threat, at any time, they could've.
3. The parents shot at the robbers 'as they came through the door'. One was accurate enough to miss the teen, one wasn't accurate enough to hit the teen.

Is this exactly "precisely as it's intended"? Arm the robbers, encourage random civilians to shoot at the bad guys with out apparent care or skill (in one case) to ensure that there isn't collateral damage? The bad guys, obviously, didn't want to actually kill her,- they wanted to threaten, or they would've shot the teen. How could easily it have been the teen that died?

Is that the responsible gun ownership you want to idealize?

Let's go to the bonus round, and take guns out of the equation. Desperate hoodlums don't have the money to purchase illegal firearms, and law-abiding homeowners don't have guns either. They're using bats and knives. And well, probably nobody turns up dead, even if it went down the same way, father beating away the two criminals, because it's so much harder to kill someone with a bat or a knife. And the teen, would've been safer, at risk for a broken limb instead of a gunshot wound.

If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


For starters, there is at least one criminal we won't be using tax money to feed and house.
 
2014-06-12 10:12:25 AM  

ciderczar: Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.

Wear a rubber? No daughter, no human shield, no robbery.


...... Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious. Either way, not a valid argument.
 
2014-06-12 10:16:28 AM  

Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.


both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.
 
2014-06-12 10:17:02 AM  

starsrift: Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.

Well, everybody knows that the presence of a gun or not isn't the issue. Dad could've done the same actions with a knife, or so I've been led to believe.


Lol you've been led astray then my friend. Ever heard "don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" If I were the criminal with a gun and he pulled a knife, I'd laugh and shoot him.
 
2014-06-12 10:17:45 AM  
Yeah, that sounds pretty damn reckless.
 
2014-06-12 10:18:52 AM  

Click Click D'oh: They are our employees.


that makes sense then, the other post read like you were some company that certifies people.
 
2014-06-12 10:19:04 AM  

Dirty J1: starsrift: Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.

Well, everybody knows that the presence of a gun or not isn't the issue. Dad could've done the same actions with a knife, or so I've been led to believe.

Lol you've been led astray then my friend. Ever heard "don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" If I were the criminal with a gun and he pulled a knife, I'd laugh and shoot him.


He was being sarcastic. LOL
 
2014-06-12 10:19:12 AM  

Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.


Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).
 
2014-06-12 10:20:43 AM  

starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.
 
2014-06-12 10:22:58 AM  

JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.


If the father had not been armed, the robbers would also not have been in possession of firearms.
 
2014-06-12 10:24:58 AM  

JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.


Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.
 
2014-06-12 10:26:13 AM  

Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.

Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).


The response was to cave in to the protesters demands but when some college kids were blocking a footpath they get maced. Also, they weren't taking up arms against the government, they were protesting government overreach and holding guns while they did it.
 
2014-06-12 10:27:17 AM  
FTFA:  The family has not been identified...

The police didn't identify the family.  But the media has no problem posting a picture of their house, with a car out front, with the plates clearly visible and readable.

What a bunch of idiots.

Kudos to the parents for a job well done.
 
2014-06-12 10:28:00 AM  

Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.


Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.
 
2014-06-12 10:28:58 AM  

Headso: Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.

Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).

The response was to cave in to the protesters demands but when some college kids were blocking a footpath they get maced. Also, they weren't taking up arms against the government, they were protesting government overreach and holding guns while they did it.


Aside from the head of one of the militia groups saying "if federal agents try to Make us stand down, we will not hesitate to open fire to defend our rights."?

Or maybe this? "It appears the revolution of which the couple (Las Vegas wal mart shooters) spoke is the exact one that has been promised by the 'nonviolent patriots' at the Bundy Ranch.
 
2014-06-12 10:29:33 AM  

Elliot8654: Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

 
I don't know, and neither do you.  But if it's my family, I don't want to trust the criminal to do the right thing.
 
2014-06-12 10:29:51 AM  

JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.


So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.
 
2014-06-12 10:30:05 AM  

Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.


It could have went your way....or it could have went this way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_mu rd ers

If you can see into the furture why are you posting on Fark instead of reaping the powerball millions while sitting on a beach drinking out of a coconut?
 
2014-06-12 10:30:48 AM  

Headso: Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.

Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).

The response was to cave in to the protesters demands but when some college kids were blocking a footpath they get maced. Also, they weren't taking up arms against the government, they were protesting government overreach and holding guns while they did it.


You are correct; enforcing existing laws is "overreach".
 
2014-06-12 10:31:14 AM  

animekev: Doesn't this seem fishy to anyone else?  2 guys want into a specific house, so they grab a girl to force her to open the door, and 2 armed parents are waiting for them?  This doesn't sound like a robbery.  Hostage taking is a big deal.  This sounds like they wanted in to that specific house, and had a good idea what might be waiting for them.  Sounds to me like this was the result of something illegal, like a fight between rival drug dealers.


Or it's just, you know, North City.
 
2014-06-12 10:32:01 AM  

animekev: Doesn't this seem fishy to anyone else?  2 guys want into a specific house, so they grab a girl to force her to open the door, and 2 armed parents are waiting for them?  This doesn't sound like a robbery.  Hostage taking is a big deal.  This sounds like they wanted in to that specific house, and had a good idea what might be waiting for them.  Sounds to me like this was the result of something illegal, like a fight between rival drug dealers.


Or they knew the daughter
 
2014-06-12 10:32:06 AM  

Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.


We crafted our indefinite detention on your Diplock Courts....don't start preaching about innocent before guilt.
 
2014-06-12 10:32:43 AM  

Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.

It could have went your way....or it could have went this way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_mu rd ers

If you can see into the furture why are you posting on Fark instead of reaping the powerball millions while sitting on a beach drinking out of a coconut?


I can't. And neither can you. So the first thing that has to stop is people claiming all the good that guns do just by being ubiquitous in America.
"Well see, if they are armed this wouldn't have happened." Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

"Think of what might have happened if they weren't armed" is a close second.
 
2014-06-12 10:32:53 AM  

danielscissorhands: Daily Fail Headline:

"Father shoots dead armed robbers using his teenage daughter as human shield during home invasion"

That wasn't very nice of the father to use his daughter as a human shield.


All's fair when fighting zombie robbers.
 
2014-06-12 10:33:14 AM  

JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

I don't know, and neither do you.  But if it's my family, I don't want to trust the criminal to do the right thing.


That is the difference between you and civilized persons. Civilized persons, like Elliot8654, realise that civilized laws always err on the side of the armed criminal. That is why people in England who kill criminal home invaders face a prison sentence for not giving a violent attacker the benefit of the doubt.
 
2014-06-12 10:33:23 AM  

Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.


Are you really innocent once you take a hostage?
 
2014-06-12 10:34:46 AM  

Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.

We crafted our indefinite detention on your Diplock Courts....don't start preaching about innocent before guilt.


So because England did it ages ago, the us bill of rights and Constitution doesn't apply in America anymore?

What kind of authoritarian are you? Do no amendments but the second matter to you?
 
2014-06-12 10:34:49 AM  

Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.

Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).

The response was to cave in to the protesters demands but when some college kids were blocking a footpath they get maced. Also, they weren't taking up arms against the government, they were protesting government overreach and holding guns while they did it.

Aside from the head of one of the militia groups saying "if federal agents try to Make us stand down, we will not hesitate to open fire to defend our rights."?

Or maybe this? "It appears the revolution of which the couple (Las Vegas wal mart shooters) spoke is the exact one that has been promised by the 'nonviolent patriots' at the Bundy Ranch.


as evidence you have a quote from some guy who heads a group call "Americans against the teaparty",  and another quote that doesn't exist when I google it...cool debate skills breh.
 
2014-06-12 10:35:11 AM  

Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.


when you point guns at innocent people going about their daily lives, you forfeit the chance at getting the benefit of the doubt.

although, I do agree that guns might not totally be the answer - using a knife to cut the head off of the bad guy & a pike to display it on the lawn might also be appropriate in certain neighborhoods.
 
2014-06-12 10:35:56 AM  

Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.

It could have went your way....or it could have went this way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_mu rd ers

If you can see into the furture why are you posting on Fark instead of reaping the powerball millions while sitting on a beach drinking out of a coconut?

I can't. And neither can you. So the first thing that has to stop is people claiming all the good that guns do just by being ubiquitous in America.
"Well see, if they are armed this wouldn't have happened." Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

"Think of what might have happened if they weren't armed" is a close second.


Yes but I am armed so it doesn't matter what actually happens, the worst case scenario is covered instead of wishing I was armed when the worst case scenario happens.

You don't keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen because you are going to set fire to the kitchen, you have it for when you do set fire to the kitchen.
 
2014-06-12 10:36:31 AM  

Headso: Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.

Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).

The response was to cave in to the protesters demands but when some college kids were blocking a footpath they get maced. Also, they weren't taking up arms against the government, they were protesting government overreach and holding guns while they did it.

Aside from the head of one of the militia groups saying "if federal agents try to Make us stand down, we will not hesitate to open fire to defend our rights."?

Or maybe this? "It appears the revolution of which the couple (Las Vegas wal mart shooters) spoke is the exact one that has been promised by the 'nonviolent patriots' at the Bundy Ranch.

as evidence you have a quote from some guy who heads a group call "Americans against the teaparty",  and another quote that doesn't exist when I google it...cool debate skills breh.


Go open carry in the hood and save us all the cost of dealing with you.
 
2014-06-12 10:37:30 AM  

unknownshooter: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.

when you point guns at innocent people going about their daily lives, you forfeit the chance at getting the benefit of the doubt.

although, I do agree that guns might not totally be the answer - using a knife to cut the head off of the bad guy & a pike to display it on the lawn might also be appropriate in certain neighborhoods.


So when I see people open carrying long guns at restaurants and holding them up, I can shoot them first because they gave up the benefit of the doubt?
 
2014-06-12 10:38:18 AM  

Elliot8654: Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?


Do you remember that a good bit of their armor was home built and only effective because the LAPD wasn't armed with anything more powerful than a shotgun?  Had one been available, a redneck's deer rifle would have ended the whole thing with two rounds.
 
2014-06-12 10:38:21 AM  

Elliot8654: Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.


When there's a gun to your daughters head, there's only one thing you can infer from the situation - that they have no respect for human life and that they'll have no problem putting a round through her skull.

They could've also executed the entire family if the robbers got them all inside and unarmed.   There's no telling what they would do.

The father did the correct thing in this situation.  He turned the tables and dealt with the robbers on HIS terms versus theirs.

Stop being such a pacifist wanker.
 
2014-06-12 10:39:01 AM  

Dimensio: Headso: Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.

Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).

The response was to cave in to the protesters demands but when some college kids were blocking a footpath they get maced. Also, they weren't taking up arms against the government, they were protesting government overreach and holding guns while they did it.

You are correct; enforcing existing laws is "overreach".


you're saying people in Colorado should be arrested for smoking pot, that's enforcing an existing law.
 
2014-06-12 10:39:33 AM  

Witness99: Piers? Is that you? Sorry about what happened at CNN :(


I LOL'd
 
2014-06-12 10:39:43 AM  

JustGetItRight: Elliot8654: Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?

Do you remember that a good bit of their armor was home built and only effective because the LAPD wasn't armed with anything more powerful than a shotgun?  Had one been available, a redneck's deer rifle would have ended the whole thing with two rounds.


Yep. Always the answer. Bigger guns. Homemade armor, then even bigger guns.

At what point does America just become the trenches of WW1 with nicer houses?
 
2014-06-12 10:39:48 AM  

Elliot8654: unknownshooter: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.

when you point guns at innocent people going about their daily lives, you forfeit the chance at getting the benefit of the doubt.

although, I do agree that guns might not totally be the answer - using a knife to cut the head off of the bad guy & a pike to display it on the lawn might also be appropriate in certain neighborhoods.

So when I see people open carrying long guns at restaurants and holding them up, I can shoot them first because they gave up the benefit of the doubt?


open carrying is different than pointing a gun at someones head. if you get muzzle-swept, i agree, draw & fire..
 
2014-06-12 10:40:50 AM  

Headso: Dimensio: Headso: Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: Guess what? The protest was legal. The Bundy case was him breaking federal law, and he didn't even recognize the fed government as an entity. Then a bunch of gun loons showed up to join him. So the government decided not to march in and murder all of them when they start shooting.

both protests were legal but only in one case did  the protesters get maced by a fat bully of a cop.

Yeah except what Bundy had done was illegal (grazing on federal land without authorization) and what the support guys did was illegal (transporting firearms across state lines to take up arms against the government).

The response was to cave in to the protesters demands but when some college kids were blocking a footpath they get maced. Also, they weren't taking up arms against the government, they were protesting government overreach and holding guns while they did it.

You are correct; enforcing existing laws is "overreach".

you're saying people in Colorado should be arrested for smoking pot, that's enforcing an existing law.


You mean how they voted, and changed the law, like how civil people do it?

Or the federal law, which feral agents in Colorado can still exercise?
 
2014-06-12 10:40:53 AM  

Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.


Are you serious? Sorry but your due process concerns are outweighed by the potential harm you could do to others. Every US jurisdiction recognizes that my right to liberty (breathing and stuff) is paramount to your legal rights when you are breaking the law by threatening the life of myself or a family member. The castle doctrine is recognized in my state for a reason. It's a great deterrent to violent property crime.
 
2014-06-12 10:42:08 AM  

Elliot8654: JustGetItRight: Elliot8654: Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?

Do you remember that a good bit of their armor was home built and only effective because the LAPD wasn't armed with anything more powerful than a shotgun?  Had one been available, a redneck's deer rifle would have ended the whole thing with two rounds.

Yep. Always the answer. Bigger guns. Homemade armor, then even bigger guns.

At what point does America just become the trenches of WW1 with nicer houses?


Please explain a means to prevent criminals from constructing homemade armor.
 
2014-06-12 10:42:26 AM  

Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.

We crafted our indefinite detention on your Diplock Courts....don't start preaching about innocent before guilt.

So because England did it ages ago, the us bill of rights and Constitution doesn't apply in America anymore?

What kind of authoritarian are you? Do no amendments but the second matter to you?


You are still have non jury trials.

All of the amendments matter but you will find people who only worry about unconstitutional laws when some other party is in power.

All of the things people were protesting about under Bush are still happening under Obama yet there are less protests mainly because it was the democrats protesting under Bush and they look the other way under Obama.

People can still be fanatical without donning a bomb vest.
 
2014-06-12 10:42:49 AM  
Diminsio and Elliot getting pretty blatant in their trolling.
 
2014-06-12 10:43:51 AM  
 
2014-06-12 10:46:49 AM  
I'm OK with this. I'm a pretty liberal person, but anyone or anything threatening my offspring is going to stop moving as quickly as expedient. This is a law of nature, which trumps all laws of men.
 
2014-06-12 10:47:09 AM  

TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!


Actually, you are correct. Legal self defense incidents are far more common than mass shootings.
 
2014-06-12 10:47:13 AM  

cretinbob: [img.myconfinedspace.com image 179x281]


Is that why they call you lot "gun grabbers"?
 
2014-06-12 10:47:35 AM  

Giltric: Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.

We crafted our indefinite detention on your Diplock Courts....don't start preaching about innocent before guilt.

So because England did it ages ago, the us bill of rights and Constitution doesn't apply in America anymore?

What kind of authoritarian are you? Do no amendments but the second matter to you?

You are still have non jury trials.

All of the amendments matter but you will find people who only worry about unconstitutional laws when some other party is in power.

All of the things people were protesting about under Bush are still happening under Obama yet there are less protests mainly because it was the democrats protesting under Bush and they look the other way under Obama.

People can still be fanatical without donning a bomb vest.


democrats havent given Obama a pass, they just know that another Bush clone would have meant the same oppression of rights, along with additional limitations on butt-sex and baby killing.
 
2014-06-12 10:47:41 AM  

Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.


Uh, he took a hostage and had a gun pointed at her head.  He proved himself guilty.  So that pretty much puts an end to any chance of being innocent.

If you're referring to the previous case where the case was dropped, I'll guess we'll never know the answer.  But it does enter into this situation as it paints a bit of a character portrait.
 
2014-06-12 10:48:44 AM  

ArkAngel: Sacrifice her for the greater good of the NRA


I am certain you actually enjoy the deaths of women and children to save your own ass.
 
2014-06-12 10:50:22 AM  
Gun controversy aside, they did the right thing on multiple levels.
 
2014-06-12 10:51:14 AM  

TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!


FBI and CDC both indicate in their data that there are anywhere from 300,000 to over a million uses of a Firearm in self defensive situations a year.

The number of mass shootings are sub-10 per year.

So, fark off?
 
2014-06-12 10:51:59 AM  
Nice shooting.

I'm guessing he has some military background. Takes a good bit of patience to wait for your shot.

I'm also guessing he knew his perps. This was a targeted takedown.
 
2014-06-12 10:53:34 AM  

FarkingStan: I know what Mal Reynolds would do...


Let River take care of it.
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-12 10:57:35 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)


Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.
 
2014-06-12 10:58:41 AM  

WTFDYW: Dirty J1: starsrift: Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.

Well, everybody knows that the presence of a gun or not isn't the issue. Dad could've done the same actions with a knife, or so I've been led to believe.

Lol you've been led astray then my friend. Ever heard "don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" If I were the criminal with a gun and he pulled a knife, I'd laugh and shoot him.

He was being sarcastic. LOL


FARK desperately needs a sarcasm font.
 
2014-06-12 10:59:50 AM  

Kit Fister: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

FBI and CDC both indicate in their data that there are anywhere from 300,000 to over a million uses of a Firearm in self defensive situations a year.

The number of mass shootings are sub-10 per year.



Pfft...  Nice stats.  We've had like 10 just this month.
It's almost getting to the point that mass shooters may have to rethink their motive.  If the case is that most of them are trying to gain some sort of infamy by doing something horrific on the way out, that is.  No one will remember EVERY one of them.  So, perhaps all the mass shootings will have the unintended upshot of becoming so common that people just won't see the purpose in doing it any more.
 
2014-06-12 11:02:54 AM  
Know what's interesting? In the neighborhood they lived in (according to the story) it almost makes sense that people there would have guns. In fact There's good reasons for it, but if you ask the locals I'm sure they would rather not have to have these weapons.

Thing is that the locals there are not the gun wackos carrying anti-tank missiles into the local KFC... the most vocal gun wankers are people who aren't from places like St.Louis, but from whitebread places in the middle of farking nowhere where the livestock outnumber the humans. They're the ones who have a stockpile of weapons that would be the envy of the Taliban, ostensibly for "self-protection", in places where the extent of criminal activity is the occasional TP'ing of someone's house or a drunk driver on Friday night.

No, it makes no farking sense.
 
2014-06-12 11:04:44 AM  

FTDA: FarkingStan: I know what Mal Reynolds would do...

Let River take care of it.
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x680]


Keep calm and bring River
 
2014-06-12 11:04:50 AM  

Giltric: Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.

It could have went your way....or it could have went this way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_mu rd ers

If you can see into the furture why are you posting on Fark instead of reaping the powerball millions while sitting on a beach drinking out of a coconut?

I can't. And neither can you. So the first thing that has to stop is people claiming all the good that guns do just by being ubiquitous in America.
"Well see, if they are armed this wouldn't have happened." Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

"Think of what might have happened if they weren't armed" is a close second.

Yes but I am armed so it doesn't matter what actually happens, the worst case scenario is covered instead of wishing I was armed when the worst case scenario happens.

You don't keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen because you are going to set fire to the kitchen, you have it for when you do set fire to the kitchen.


Having a fire extinguisher never makes a fire get worse, nor does it make a fire more likely. Nor are there serious repercussions if you use the fire extinguisher, but it turns out there was just smoke.
 
2014-06-12 11:07:29 AM  
Glad it all worked out for the best. Condolences to the family of the one who lost his life.
 
2014-06-12 11:10:27 AM  
I think nothing but good happened here...
All you jerk-off, wimp, liberal, bleeding hearts can go straight to hell with the notion that "If ANYONE died, you're not happy!"
Thieving, most-likely raping, already murdering asshole criminals are dead...
EVERYTIME a piece of shiat criminal content to prey on people and bring harm and terror to their lives dies, I am happy as hell.
fark any of you for thinking anything different.
Assholes like you are the reason they're running loose in the first place and not locked up in prison where they belong...cuz some bleeding heart farktard let them have "a second chance" in life, then a 3rd, then a 4th...and this is what they did with them!
BE DEAD, CRIMINALS...ENJOY HELL!!!
 
2014-06-12 11:10:33 AM  

mrshowrules: Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)

Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.


Why are subjects to the crown so concerned with the rights of citizens?
 
2014-06-12 11:13:16 AM  

amoral: Giltric: Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.

It could have went your way....or it could have went this way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_mu rd ers

If you can see into the furture why are you posting on Fark instead of reaping the powerball millions while sitting on a beach drinking out of a coconut?

I can't. And neither can you. So the first thing that has to stop is people claiming all the good that guns do just by being ubiquitous in America.
"Well see, if they are armed this wouldn't have happened." Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

"Think of what might have happened if they weren't armed" is a close second.

Yes but I am armed so it doesn't matter what actually happens, the worst case scenario is covered instead of wishing I was armed when the worst case scenario happens.

You don't keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen because you are going to set fire to the kitchen, you have it for when you do set fire to the kitchen.

Having a fire extinguisher never makes a fire get worse, nor does it make a fire more likely. Nor are there serious repercussions if you use the fire extinguisher, but it turns out there was just smoke.


You should read up about fire extinguishers.

They absolutely can make a fire worse.
 
2014-06-12 11:14:51 AM  

5 star chef of tv dinners: rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"

[mlkshk.com image 330x186]

How is that cost effective?  There is a chance that you could hit the prison and then you would have to keep rebuilding these things.  Long-term outlook isn't very good with this plan.


No construction needed, just a perimeter mine field in depth and sea mines as well. Drop the farktards out of a helicopter and be done with it. Coventry.
 
2014-06-12 11:17:34 AM  
I'll ask the obvious question (assuming it wasn't asked. Didn't read all comments).

How did the other perp survive?
 
2014-06-12 11:18:46 AM  

Dimensio: soporific: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Again I ask, what should the father have done? What, in your view, is the correct action to take in this situation?

Since you believe that what he did was wrong, what was the right choice?

Contact law enforcement. The duty of police is to protect citizens.


And what should he have done until they showed up? These men held his daughter at gunpoint, let's not forget. What should he have done until the police showed up?

Should he have let them rob him?
Should he have let them rape his daughter? Kill her?
Should he have let them rape or kill his wife?
Should he have let them rape and kill him?

When would you allow him to use lethal force to defend himself or his family? Or do you think he should never have that option and instead simply let these men do what they want to him and his family?

Again, the police don't jump out instantly to shoot the bad guys. It can take a few minutes for them to show, assuming they aren't all busy elsewhere. A lot can happen before the police arrive. What should he have done in the meantime while these criminals held his daughter at gunpoint?
 
2014-06-12 11:19:41 AM  

Rawhead Rex: All you jerk-off, wimp, liberal, bleeding hearts can go straight to hell with the notion that "If ANYONE died, you're not happy!"


I think progressive taxation and social services for the poor are good, I also don't believe jesus rode a dinosaur, think god magic will fix global warming or believe in trickle down economics but I think people who do a home invasion are fair game when it comes to feeding them a bullet.
 
2014-06-12 11:19:56 AM  

animekev: Doesn't this seem fishy to anyone else?  2 guys want into a specific house, so they grab a girl to force her to open the door, and 2 armed parents are waiting for them?  This doesn't sound like a robbery.  Hostage taking is a big deal.  This sounds like they wanted in to that specific house, and had a good idea what might be waiting for them.  Sounds to me like this was the result of something illegal, like a fight between rival drug dealers.


Not really. Say your looking for an easy hpuse to break into. You see a young girl outside, a perfect way to get inside. Hold a gun to her head and she will let you in.

While its true that most home invaders are looking for drugs, it does not mean they know drugs are there. They are simply assuming you have drugs because that is normal to them.
 
2014-06-12 11:24:52 AM  

mrshowrules: Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.


Yes, it turns out that insane are often not effect by extreme psychological conditions associated with life or death situations.  Are you suggesting I hire arm and uniform insane people to improve their firearms proficiency?
 
2014-06-12 11:27:01 AM  

Another Government Employee: Nice shooting.

I'm guessing he has some military background. Takes a good bit of patience to wait for your shot.

I'm also guessing he knew his perps. This was a targeted takedown.


In the realm of completely baseless speculation, I'd bet that the perp "holding hostage" was really waving his piece around like he owned the place and had the girl in the Standard Female Immobilization Grip (the upper arm), not in the Standard Movie Standoff Hostage Pose.  Little doubt that girl and perp knew each other and there was an argument, probably a bunch of expletives and verbal cockwaving.  Dad's tired of the scumbag being around, pops him and his little friend figuring that the fam can get their stories straight together.  The only evidence I have for this theory is that the perp never got off a shot, which seems unlikely when both dad and mom put rounds on target (or off target, in the mom's case).
 
2014-06-12 11:35:12 AM  

RsquaredW: Another Government Employee: Nice shooting.

I'm guessing he has some military background. Takes a good bit of patience to wait for your shot.

I'm also guessing he knew his perps. This was a targeted takedown.

In the realm of completely baseless speculation, I'd bet that the perp "holding hostage" was really waving his piece around like he owned the place and had the girl in the Standard Female Immobilization Grip (the upper arm), not in the Standard Movie Standoff Hostage Pose.  Little doubt that girl and perp knew each other and there was an argument, probably a bunch of expletives and verbal cockwaving.  Dad's tired of the scumbag being around, pops him and his little friend figuring that the fam can get their stories straight together.  The only evidence I have for this theory is that the perp never got off a shot, which seems unlikely when both dad and mom put rounds on target (or off target, in the mom's case).


The thread about "the rest of the story" won't be nearly as popular.
 
2014-06-12 11:37:42 AM  

Click Click D'oh: mrshowrules: Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.

Yes, it turns out that insane are often not effect by extreme psychological conditions associated with life or death situations.  Are you suggesting I hire arm and uniform insane people to improve their firearms proficiency?


Just some observations.  I am 100% in favour of law enforcement receiving the best firearms training possible.
 
2014-06-12 11:39:47 AM  

RsquaredW: In the realm of completely baseless speculation, I'd bet that the perp "holding hostage" was really waving his piece around like he owned the place and had the girl in the Standard Female Immobilization Grip (the upper arm), not in the Standard Movie Standoff Hostage Pose.  Little doubt that girl and perp knew each other and there was an argument, probably a bunch of expletives and verbal cockwaving.  Dad's tired of the scumbag being around, pops him and his little friend figuring that the fam can get their stories straight together.  The only evidence I have for this theory is that the perp never got off a shot, which seems unlikely when both dad and mom put rounds on target (or off target, in the mom's case).


Could you FWD FWD FWD this horseshiat to my grandma?
 
2014-06-12 11:40:11 AM  
 
2014-06-12 11:40:53 AM  

Giltric: mrshowrules: Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)

Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.

Why are subjects to the crown so concerned with the rights of citizens?


Our observance of the Crown is purely symbolic, not unlike how you think you are a soldier protecting your country with your gun collection.  Neither have any basis in practical reality.
 
2014-06-12 11:41:53 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.


As I said: the best solution would have been giving the armed, hostage-taking robbers the benefit of the doubt. I am pleased that others agree with me.
 
2014-06-12 11:42:13 AM  

Cold_Sassy: WTFDYW: Dirty J1: starsrift: Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.

Well, everybody knows that the presence of a gun or not isn't the issue. Dad could've done the same actions with a knife, or so I've been led to believe.

Lol you've been led astray then my friend. Ever heard "don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" If I were the criminal with a gun and he pulled a knife, I'd laugh and shoot him.

He was being sarcastic. LOL

FARK desperately needs a sarcasm font.


I wouldn't say it was sarcasm but satire, inverting the claim about mass murderers of "if they didn't get a gun, they'd use a knife or sword" or whatever. Because it's a farking ridiculous argument.

In total - as I explained to phenn in my Weeners to him - which he didn't seem to grasp, but whatever - using an innocent as a backstop (or forestop?) to your shots doesn't sound like a responsible gun owner.

I'm glad it all worked out, and that the mother missed completely instead of hitting her daughter by accident, and that the father only missed low (thigh wounds in addition to body shots) instead of hitting his daughter. I'm a little disturbed by some of the "the bullets landed where they were supposed to, so the actions were correct" comments along the thread. Making the assumption of accuracy doesn't seem like a safe bet. As an advisory tale on why a homeowner should have a gun, I don't think this is the one we're looking for - the mother got very very lucky, and the father was either luck or skill. Hopefully it's the latter.
But, like Elliot8654 said, if Americans didn't have guns, it'd be something else. Farking savages, the lot of you. :)
 
2014-06-12 11:44:34 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.


No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?
 
2014-06-12 11:44:57 AM  

Elliot8654: trevzie: Elliot8654: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

"Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

If someone is captured alive by law enforcement, they are have the right to a trial.  The constutition doesn't guarantee you the right to live through a gunfight when you invade someones home with a weapon.

You seem to think that the criminals right to a trial is supposed to supercede the right of self defense. It doesn't, hence why no charges were files against the father.

Ya know what? Fine.
I think I need to move back to England.
I find it absolutely amazing that this country is so absolutely gung ho for bring able to shoot other people.

Even if America did license and control guns, from the sounds of it you would just invent new ways to kill each other.


Have a nice trip, Govna'!
 
2014-06-12 11:45:13 AM  

Elliot8654: joness0154: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

Yeah, no need to have police sharpshooters to rescue hostages either!

We can all gather round the campfire and sing koombaya together, hostage takers and all.

When you show no concern or respect for human life of another, don't be surprised when a protective father decides to do anything he can to preserve his family.

This was a good shoot. The hostage takers sealed their own fate. Don't want to die? How about not pointing a gun at some girls head to begin with.

God, we've got a bunch of pussies in here this morning.

Yep. Dad saved his daughter. Had to kill someone to do it. Not the happiest about people dying.

Sorry if you are totally happy killing people. I would prefer we didn't if it could be avoided. And since they were using her for leverage, and a dead hostage is worthless, the chance of them actually killing her is not as guaranteed as you would think.


I'm glad you're ok with people pointing guns at the heads of your children.
 
2014-06-12 11:47:01 AM  

joness0154: Cold_Sassy: Dimensio: Elliot8654: Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

I am pleased that I am not the only person who recognize that killing someone who is allegedly threatening the life of a family member denies that person due process and a fair trial.

Dimensio, I generally enjoy your posts but this is plain old stupid.

Do you really think the type of behavior on the aggressors part was A-OK?  Did you read that one of the perps was on trial for murder but charges were dismissed because of witness intimidation?   Some people are not entitled to the courtesy of "their day in court" when they choose to exhibit such behavior.

Sometimes, what has to be done in the moment gets done in the moment.  Did you read that the parents of the girl were not charged with any crime?  What does that tell you?

He's been sarcastitrolling all morning. You just bit, as did I yesterday. Haha


Dimensio's posts in gun threads are great. I have him favorited just so the sarcasm doesn't go unappreciated
 
2014-06-12 11:47:18 AM  

joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?


How, exactly, were the criminals winners in this incident?
 
2014-06-12 11:49:41 AM  

Dimensio: Evidently the father referenced in the article decided to appoint himself judge, jury and executioner.


Yes, in these situations, there is no time to discuss in committee.
 
2014-06-12 11:50:48 AM  
 
2014-06-12 11:52:27 AM  

rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"

[mlkshk.com image 330x186]


Don't forget some of them are volcanic.  That just adds to the entertainment.
 
2014-06-12 11:52:33 AM  

Dimensio: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

As I said: the best solution would have been giving the armed, hostage-taking robbers the benefit of the doubt. I am pleased that others agree with me.


Couldn't resist.

big.assets.huffingtonpost.com
 
2014-06-12 11:53:56 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Once I thought everyone would know this video was satire... Now I'm not so sure.


I haven't seen that. That's pretty damn brilliant - bookmarked!
 
2014-06-12 11:57:02 AM  

Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's

What with like a fishing vest or catchers chest protector like Lanza and the Aurora shooter?

Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?


I love how anti gun freaks always bring up the North Hollywood shootout as an example of why the police need armored vehicles and real assault rifles or that armed criminals someone cannot be taken down.
Of course the police need to outfitted like a Marine platoon! Look at what happened in North Hollywood.
That was one incident that besides being handled very poorly has never happened again.
But the Left uses it as an example of for their gun ban and military local police causes.

When a homeowner hears about a home invasion (which happen in far greater numbers than North Hollywood style shootouts) and wants to arm himself against such a threat the homeowner is call 'paranoid', a 'gun nut', someone who lives in fear and a whole host of other derogatory names.

Care to explain why that is?
 
2014-06-12 11:59:54 AM  

Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.


This is why people don't take bleeding hearts seriously
 
2014-06-12 12:04:07 PM  

Elliot8654: JustGetItRight: Elliot8654: Remember the north Hollywood shootout? Or was that before your time?

Do you remember that a good bit of their armor was home built and only effective because the LAPD wasn't armed with anything more powerful than a shotgun?  Had one been available, a redneck's deer rifle would have ended the whole thing with two rounds.

Yep. Always the answer. Bigger guns. Homemade armor, then even bigger guns.

At what point does America just become the trenches of WW1 with nicer houses?


You realize that incident happened 20 years ago? Anyway it's really obvious you have no knowledge of firearms. A typical FUDD bolt action would've ended that incident pretty quickly.
 
2014-06-12 12:04:39 PM  

Launch Code: This man should be charged with a hate crime. He obviously hated these poor individuals. The whole family is probably racists. The daughter probably looked at the gentlemen disrespectfully and caused this whole incident. So she should be charged with inciting a riot. The wife is the hero here because she tried not to hurt anyone and was probably forced to shoot by her evil husband, who's probably a super racist and a woman hater.
As a proud liberal I would NEVER allow firearms near my house. Those things are dangerous killing machines and kill people indiscriminately whenever the device feels like going off. If guns were outlawed this incident would've never happened because those gentlemen would never use something illegal to force fellow Americans to do something. If guns were outlawed, those gentleman would have to get jobs and become contributing members of society.
This family, probably racists, should've acted more appropriately and the lives of these 2 poor souls would've been spared. Think of their poor families that now have to deal with the loss.
As a proud democrat that believes strongly in constitution, except the dumb parts, I would've handled the situation differently. I would've asked my wife to call 911 and while waiting for the cops that are always parked within seconds of mine and everyone else's location. I would've informed the gentleman that committing this crime would probably prevent them from legally purchasing firearms in the future. I would've explained that I voted for obama, but not because of his race. I would've cried and whimpered and told them where all my valuables are located. I would've offered up my daughters and the wife's, depending on her looks, sex parts. I would've offered to take one of the gentlemen to my ATM while the other stayed with my family and watched TV and ate snacks and had participated in civil intelligent conversation. Or, I would've grabbed the wife, escaped out the back door and called 911. Hopefully the cops ...


This was by far, the funniest post I've read on Fark today.

/slowgolfclap.jpg
 
2014-06-12 12:04:48 PM  

Dimensio: Please explain a means to prevent criminals from constructing homemade armor.


Maybe it will also work to prevent someone from armoring up a bulldozer and trashing a town.
 
2014-06-12 12:06:45 PM  

joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?


It doesn't fit the narrative


The cognitive dissonance in light of the Wilcox thread is deliciously palpable
 
2014-06-12 12:10:42 PM  

Doom MD: It doesn't fit the narrative


The cognitive dissonance in light of the Wilcox thread is deliciously palpable


Exactly.  Everyone in that thread was parroting that the end result was the only thing that mattered.

If we use that logic and apply it to this incident....
 
2014-06-12 12:10:56 PM  

zepher: But the Left uses it as an example of for their gun ban and military local police causes.


sorry but the states with the highest incarceration rates and most ridiculous drug laws are red states. The only issue conservatives have right are gun laws. I call on every gun enthusiast to become a liberal who disagrees with that single policy position  rather than being a conservative that carries water for oligarchs and theocrats all just because they agree with you on this one issue.
 
2014-06-12 12:11:50 PM  
....an a and the gun homicide count goes up.
 
2014-06-12 12:12:07 PM  

give me doughnuts: In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!


I guess the reason they house a lot of inmates together is because in bulk they're a lot cheaper per unit.
 
2014-06-12 12:13:09 PM  

durbnpoisn: Kit Fister: TheGregiss: phenn: starsrift: Well, this ought to be good for a few gun nuts' masturbatory fantasies.

Oh, FFS. Spare me, Bunny Foo Foo.

When some asshole shoots up a bunch of innocent people and your side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's relevant and important.

When someone uses a firearm precisely as it's intended to save the life of a family member and our side of the debate makes a point on the event, it's masturbatory.

Cut me a mother-farking break.

Yeah! Why mass shootings are so rare and incidents like in the article are the norm!

FBI and CDC both indicate in their data that there are anywhere from 300,000 to over a million uses of a Firearm in self defensive situations a year.

The number of mass shootings are sub-10 per year.


Pfft...  Nice stats.  We've had like 10 just this month.
It's almost getting to the point that mass shooters may have to rethink their motive.  If the case is that most of them are trying to gain some sort of infamy by doing something horrific on the way out, that is.  No one will remember EVERY one of them.  So, perhaps all the mass shootings will have the unintended upshot of becoming so common that people just won't see the purpose in doing it any more.


If the jerkoff media would stop glorifying their behavior and STFU about it, it would stop.
 
2014-06-12 12:15:37 PM  

Dimensio: joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?

How, exactly, were the criminals winners in this incident?


One gets free housing, the other, early retirement.
 
2014-06-12 12:20:28 PM  

Dimensio: joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?

How, exactly, were the criminals winners in this incident?


One got to leave life early, the other gets to live and win a few years of boyfriends in jail?
 
2014-06-12 12:20:41 PM  

RsquaredW: Another Government Employee: Nice shooting.

I'm guessing he has some military background. Takes a good bit of patience to wait for your shot.

I'm also guessing he knew his perps. This was a targeted takedown.

In the realm of completely baseless speculation, I'd bet that the perp "holding hostage" was really waving his piece around like he owned the place and had the girl in the Standard Female Immobilization Grip (the upper arm), not in the Standard Movie Standoff Hostage Pose.  Little doubt that girl and perp knew each other and there was an argument, probably a bunch of expletives and verbal cockwaving.  Dad's tired of the scumbag being around, pops him and his little friend figuring that the fam can get their stories straight together.  The only evidence I have for this theory is that the perp never got off a shot, which seems unlikely when both dad and mom put rounds on target (or off target, in the mom's case).


A lot of folks (like Mom)  would have just shot in a knee jerk reaction and hit the wrong target (the daughter).  No, this guy took a breath and assessed before shooting.

The reason I think this was a targeted event is the perps went right for the duaghter. This leads me to believe the perp knew that Daddy was armed.

I wonder why they chose that house?  Money? Drugs?
 
2014-06-12 12:25:41 PM  

Another Government Employee: I wonder why they chose that house? Money? Drugs?


Target of opportunity with the daughter being outside and vulnerable?
 
2014-06-12 12:25:53 PM  

RassilonsExWife: UseUrHeadFred: I give my daughter the "kill" command. Then I take the dead robber's wallet and have an ice cream cone with his money.

Eta Kooram Nah Smech!


flavorwire.files.wordpress.com

Rubba de jawa, wookie nipple pinchy!
 
2014-06-12 12:28:18 PM  

WTFDYW: Dirty J1: starsrift: Dirty J1: You see! For all you anti gun vaginas out there, this is the good side of gun ownership. What would have been the alternative? Let them barge in, rape the daughter, kill the dad, rape and kill the mom, then kill the daughter? I can't see a more plausible solution than what this guy did. Bravo.

Well, everybody knows that the presence of a gun or not isn't the issue. Dad could've done the same actions with a knife, or so I've been led to believe.

Lol you've been led astray then my friend. Ever heard "don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" If I were the criminal with a gun and he pulled a knife, I'd laugh and shoot him.

He was being sarcastic. LOL


Oh..... Well my bad lol.
 
2014-06-12 12:37:43 PM  

Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!


The alternative in this scenario is worse. This was the best possible outcome. If the other guy had survived tp go to trial, it would mean the father and daughter would most likely be dead.

Does the right to a fair trial trump the right to live?
 
2014-06-12 12:39:15 PM  

Dimensio: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

As I said: the best solution would have been giving the armed, hostage-taking robbers the benefit of the doubt. I am pleased that others agree with me.


10/10

You really had me going, you magnificent bastard.
 
2014-06-12 12:40:10 PM  

cwolf20: Considering how screwed up society is. I was expecting the father to be arrested for murder, and the daughter to be brought up on charges of being an accessory.


Luckily this didn't happen in Chicago, New York City, Maryland, Washington DC, or Massachusetts.
 
2014-06-12 12:41:32 PM  

Elliot8654: phenn: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.

How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.

I get it. I get it. Defend your daughter.
It's the whole societal love affair with guns and power.

This one case isn't the point. What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's? Then your average family will be stocking anti tank rounds.

It's a big dumb escalation that is happening almost nowhere else in the world.


Armor and AK-47's? This isn't a movie.
 
2014-06-12 12:43:16 PM  
The 17-year-old had been fetching items from her car outside her home in St Louis, Missouri around 11pm when the two men grabbed her, put a gun to her head and forced her up to the front door as a human shield.

The girl's father, 34, saw the men approaching with his teen daughter and grabbed his own gun to fire shots at them from the home where a five-year-old boy was also present.


So I want to rob someone so I wait til the father who doesn't live there is home and instead of busting the door in or a window I take a hostage on the street and try to negotiate my way in? And the father has time to get his gun and shoot me around his daughter while me and my partner can't hit anyone and neither can mom? I guess that could happen...but I won't be surprised if there's more to this story.

McClinton was charged with second-degree murder for the death of his alleged accomplice, and a judge ordered him held on a $1 million cash-only bond, the station reports. A spokesman for the circuit attorney's office told CBS St. Louis that if someone dies during the commission of a felony - even a suspect - murder charges can be filed. The charge is also referred to as felony murder.

Heh.
 
2014-06-12 12:43:23 PM  

mschwenk: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

The alternative in this scenario is worse. This was the best possible outcome. If the other guy had survived tp go to trial, it would mean the father and daughter would most likely be dead.

Does the right to a fair trial trump the right to live?


Or they steal stuff, back out, push the girl, and run because they don't want murder added to the list of charges. Arrested later that day.

Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.
 
2014-06-12 12:43:58 PM  

mschwenk: Elliot8654: phenn: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Killing people isn't something we can fix or undo. It's basic.

I get the need to defend yourself. I do. But America is the only country who subscribes to "peace through superior firepower" in its own city streets.

How do YOU not get it? Someone had this man's daughter and was holding a gun to her farking head! It probably had zero to do with killing the dude (mentally) and EVERYTHING to do with saving her life.

Jebus.

I get it. I get it. Defend your daughter.
It's the whole societal love affair with guns and power.

This one case isn't the point. What happens when the guys who break in are armored and with ak47's? Then your average family will be stocking anti tank rounds.

It's a big dumb escalation that is happening almost nowhere else in the world.

Armor and AK-47's? This isn't a movie.


North Hollywood?
 
2014-06-12 12:45:34 PM  

uttertosh: Grotesk: Dead armed robbers were shot by a man who used his teenage daughter as a human shield while a home was invaded?

comma goes where?

I understand what you mean, but the lack of comma after the word 'robbers' makes all the difference here.

The headline of TFA is headachey, but not really in the way you point out.


I was trying to figure out

A) How dead robbers were robbing his house, and

2) Why the dad was using his daughter as a human shield.
 
2014-06-12 12:46:11 PM  

Doom MD: joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?

It doesn't fit the narrative


The cognitive dissonance in light of the Wilcox thread is deliciously palpable


I imagine the "run out the door and call 911/ cowardice is a virtue" crowd will find some way to spin it.   Something along the lines of how this dad was a reckless cowboy that put everyone in danger and if they had just waited for the super cops to arrive maybe this poor little criminal might have a chance to be rehabilitated.

Oh sorry Nina, I didn't see you there....troll on sweety.
 
2014-06-12 12:48:03 PM  
This man drinks liberal tears for dinner.

/cry more libs
 
2014-06-12 12:49:29 PM  

WTFDYW: Witness99: Clearly, the right thing to do in a situation like this is to lock the door and call 911. When they break in, you call a "time out" because it's going to take the police 15 minutes to get there. You say calm down everybody, you don't want to do anything you would regret. Let's take a breather, have a beer and allow cooler heads to prevail. Also, would you mind leaving your firearms outside as this is a gun free zone (point to the sign to validate your claim).

This way, nobody gets killed, raped, hurt or robbed. You've done the civil thing rather than arrogantly appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner. And you've taught those two young men a lesson in manners, which they will need to legitimately attract the affections of those like your daughter.

That was beautiful.

Thank you.


I agree. Double Plus Good.
 
2014-06-12 12:50:20 PM  

Another Government Employee: A lot of folks (like Mom)  would have just shot in a knee jerk reaction and hit the wrong target (the daughter).  No, this guy took a breath and assessed before shooting.

The reason I think this was a targeted event is the perps went right for the duaghter. This leads me to believe the perp knew that Daddy was armed.


So, basically,  it is easier to grab females than males, and people generally reside indoors and it is easier to grab people that are outside than those that are inside, so therefore they know dad is armed?

Got it, Sherlock.
 
2014-06-12 12:51:00 PM  

Elliot8654: mschwenk: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

The alternative in this scenario is worse. This was the best possible outcome. If the other guy had survived tp go to trial, it would mean the father and daughter would most likely be dead.

Does the right to a fair trial trump the right to live?

Or they steal stuff, back out, push the girl, and run because they don't want murder added to the list of charges. Arrested later that day.

Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.


I guess you missed the part about this guy being previously charged with murder and the only reason the charges were dropped is the witness backed out of testifying.
 
2014-06-12 12:53:01 PM  

mschwenk: cwolf20: Considering how screwed up society is. I was expecting the father to be arrested for murder, and the daughter to be brought up on charges of being an accessory.

Luckily this didn't happen in Chicago, New York City, Maryland, Washington DC, or Massachusetts.


Residents of those places could still use pepper spray. The Massachusetts legislature even voted to remove the requirement of possessing a firearms identification card for purchasing and possessing pepper spray.
 
2014-06-12 12:53:16 PM  

CADMonkey79: Elliot8654: mschwenk: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

The alternative in this scenario is worse. This was the best possible outcome. If the other guy had survived tp go to trial, it would mean the father and daughter would most likely be dead.

Does the right to a fair trial trump the right to live?

Or they steal stuff, back out, push the girl, and run because they don't want murder added to the list of charges. Arrested later that day.

Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.

I guess you missed the part about this guy being previously charged with murder and the only reason the charges were dropped is the witness backed out of testifying.


No. I got that part.

I missed the part where the "best thing" possible still involves people dying.
 
2014-06-12 12:54:43 PM  

Elliot8654: Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.


People generally are not simply happy that someone got shot.  They don't mind that some dirt-bag was shot.
 
2014-06-12 12:58:35 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Elliot8654: Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.

People generally are not simply happy that someone got shot.  They don't mind that some dirt-bag was shot.


Never forget that to someone out there, I am a bleeding heart libtard dirt-bag, someone else in this thread is a tea party gun nut dirt-bag, and you are a dirtbag to someone else.

Dirt-bag is not a good reason to not care if someone gets killed.

I bet he thought the people he was robbing and the person he killed were rich dirt bags.
 
2014-06-12 12:58:47 PM  

Elliot8654: CADMonkey79: Elliot8654: mschwenk: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

The alternative in this scenario is worse. This was the best possible outcome. If the other guy had survived tp go to trial, it would mean the father and daughter would most likely be dead.

Does the right to a fair trial trump the right to live?

Or they steal stuff, back out, push the girl, and run because they don't want murder added to the list of charges. Arrested later that day.

Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.

I guess you missed the part about this guy being previously charged with murder and the only reason the charges were dropped is the witness backed out of testifying.

No. I got that part.

I missed the part where the "best thing" possible still involves people dying.


Because the deceased was a violent criminal that won't be able to victimize anyone else.  How's that hard to grasp?
 
2014-06-12 01:04:03 PM  

CADMonkey79: Because the deceased was a violent criminal that won't be able to victimize anyone else.  How's that hard to grasp?


But according to their family, they were good kids starting to turn their lives around!  They didn't deserve this!
 
2014-06-12 01:07:12 PM  
good.
 
2014-06-12 01:07:31 PM  

Another Government Employee: RsquaredW: Another Government Employee: Nice shooting.

I'm guessing he has some military background. Takes a good bit of patience to wait for your shot.

I'm also guessing he knew his perps. This was a targeted takedown.

In the realm of completely baseless speculation, I'd bet that the perp "holding hostage" was really waving his piece around like he owned the place and had the girl in the Standard Female Immobilization Grip (the upper arm), not in the Standard Movie Standoff Hostage Pose.  Little doubt that girl and perp knew each other and there was an argument, probably a bunch of expletives and verbal cockwaving.  Dad's tired of the scumbag being around, pops him and his little friend figuring that the fam can get their stories straight together.  The only evidence I have for this theory is that the perp never got off a shot, which seems unlikely when both dad and mom put rounds on target (or off target, in the mom's case).

A lot of folks (like Mom)  would have just shot in a knee jerk reaction and hit the wrong target (the daughter).  No, this guy took a breath and assessed before shooting.

The reason I think this was a targeted event is the perps went right for the duaghter. This leads me to believe the perp knew that Daddy was armed.

I wonder why they chose that house?  Money? Drugs?


They chose that house because the family, just like the Clutter family in the book "In Cold Blood", were rich and kept stacks of cash in the house. This time, however, one of the sociopaths died at the scene and the family survived. Sadly, some people have a problem with this outcome.
 
2014-06-12 01:07:58 PM  

Dimensio: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

As I said: the best solution would have been giving the armed, hostage-taking robbers the benefit of the doubt. I am pleased that others agree with me.


That cold medicine is working, you are on today. :)

/new batteries
 
2014-06-12 01:15:55 PM  

Dimensio: joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?

How, exactly, were the criminals winners in this incident?


They no longer have to worry about filing income tax returns next April.
 
2014-06-12 01:18:06 PM  

Yaw String: Dimensio: joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?

How, exactly, were the criminals winners in this incident?

They no longer have to worry about filing income tax returns next April.


While you do have a point, my guess is these dregs of society actually got more in credits than they paid into the system.

If they even filed at all.
 
2014-06-12 01:19:25 PM  

Elliot8654: Nutsac_Jim: Elliot8654: Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.

People generally are not simply happy that someone got shot.  They don't mind that some dirt-bag was shot.

Never forget that to someone out there, I am a bleeding heart libtard dirt-bag, someone else in this thread is a tea party gun nut dirt-bag, and you are a dirtbag to someone else.

Dirt-bag is not a good reason to not care if someone gets killed.

I bet he thought the people he was robbing and the person he killed were rich dirt bags.


The parents were just respecting the beliefs of their fellow citizens. See, the thugs declared that the believed violence to be an acceptable solution to their problems. The parents acknowledged their belief system and shared in it.

We should rejoice in the cultural exchange that went on.

I understand your delusional belief that no one should have to die an unnatural death, but sometimes rabid animals just have to be put down. What would your preferred solution have been? That the family was robbed and the thugs go free to commit more crimes? Or would you prefer they be locked up at the taxpayer's expense forever? Are you willing to pay for their incarceration, cause I'm not.
 
2014-06-12 01:23:42 PM  
Has anyone pointed out this was a home defense situation?
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable for a society to allow their citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves and their loved ones in their home.
Also, I think it is bat-shait crazy for a society to allow gun uts to run around in public carrying loaded guns.
A successful home self defense incident does not justify concealed or open carry laws so let's not conflate the two!
 
2014-06-12 01:24:47 PM  
"gun uts" is a new type of potato chip.  Very macho!
 
2014-06-12 01:25:13 PM  

Headso: zepher: But the Left uses it as an example of for their gun ban and military local police causes.

sorry but the states with the highest incarceration rates and most ridiculous drug laws are red states. The only issue conservatives have right are gun laws. I call on every gun enthusiast to become a liberal who disagrees with that single policy position  rather than being a conservative that carries water for oligarchs and theocrats all just because they agree with you on this one issue.


High incarceration rate many times equals lower crime rate.
Care to site what states have higher crime rates? Red or Blue?

And I don't carry water for anyone.
I think the vast majority of drug laws are stupid and do nothing to prevent crime or actual drug use.
 
2014-06-12 01:26:58 PM  

Yaw String: Dimensio: joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?

How, exactly, were the criminals winners in this incident?

They no longer have to worry about filing income tax returns next April.


Their advancing in their careers. Some more than others.
 
2014-06-12 01:28:15 PM  

RisaTravelAgent: Has anyone pointed out this was a home defense situation?
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable for a society to allow their citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves and their loved ones in their home.
Also, I think it is bat-shait crazy for a society to allow gun uts to run around in public carrying loaded guns.
A successful home self defense incident does not justify concealed or open carry laws so let's not conflate the two!


You are correct, as I am certain that you will be able to justify through demonstration of a pattern of increased rates of violent crime, including homicide, following enactment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems.
 
2014-06-12 01:29:59 PM  

Elliot8654: mschwenk: Elliot8654: give me doughnuts: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.


With just a few bullets purchased and fired by a citizen, the St. Louis court system avoided having to pay for the trial and incarceration of a felon. In New York in 2012, the cost just to house, care for, and guard a single inmate was over $180,000.

A win for the taxpayers!

Yay! Instead of anyone getting a fair trial or actually figuring out what caused this or how to make it better, we just kill people!

Hooray! Who needs the other amendments when we have the 2nd!

The alternative in this scenario is worse. This was the best possible outcome. If the other guy had survived tp go to trial, it would mean the father and daughter would most likely be dead.

Does the right to a fair trial trump the right to live?

Or they steal stuff, back out, push the girl, and run because they don't want murder added to the list of charges. Arrested later that day.

Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.


Dead criminals with a long wrap sheet can only be a benefit to society.
There is no other way to logically look at it.
 
2014-06-12 01:33:21 PM  

mrshowrules: Giltric: mrshowrules: Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)

Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.

Why are subjects to the crown so concerned with the rights of citizens?

Our observance of the Crown is purely symbolic, not unlike how you think you are a soldier protecting your country with your gun collection.  Neither have any basis in practical reality.


I don't have to save my country, I already saved a couple lives in 3 instances....2 of which lead to arrests and one which went unreported.
 
2014-06-12 01:35:02 PM  

RisaTravelAgent: Has anyone pointed out this was a home defense situation?
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable for a society to allow their citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves and their loved ones in their home.
Also, I think it is bat-shait crazy for a society to allow gun uts to run around in public carrying loaded guns.
A successful home self defense incident does not justify concealed or open carry laws so let's not conflate the two!


I completely agree.  No one has the right to self-defense outside the home.
 
2014-06-12 01:42:00 PM  

Elliot8654: Headso: Elliot8654: "Some people are not entitled to their day in court"?

So you don't believe in all the amendments in the bill of rights, just the 2nd?

the amendments are restrictions on government power they aren't restrictions on an individual protecting his family from a home invasion.

No. They are ensuring our rights, like the right to a speedy trial for all citizens.


He got a speedy trial.  2400fps is pretty damn speedy.
 
2014-06-12 01:43:13 PM  

RisaTravelAgent: Also, I think it is bat-shait crazy for a society to allow gun uts to run around in public carrying loaded guns.
A successful home self defense incident does not justify concealed or open carry laws so let's not conflate the two!


So you're OK with people preventing thugs from raping, robbing, and killing people in their own homes, but feel as though they should accept that behavior should they ever venture outside.

Got it.

/Strongly dislike the open carry bunch.  They aren't helping.
 
2014-06-12 01:43:41 PM  

Giltric: mrshowrules: Giltric: mrshowrules: Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)

Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.

Why are subjects to the crown so concerned with the rights of citizens?

Our observance of the Crown is purely symbolic, not unlike how you think you are a soldier protecting your country with your gun collection.  Neither have any basis in practical reality.

I don't have to save my country, I already saved a couple lives in 3 instances....2 of which lead to arrests and one which went unreported.


So 2 lives total or 2 lives in each of 3 instances, for a total of 6.  You saved 6 lives?

The guy in the link only saved his daughter and this is being reported Nationally.  I assume your story must have been made into a major motion picture.
 
2014-06-12 01:56:13 PM  

RassilonsExWife: UseUrHeadFred: I give my daughter the "kill" command. Then I take the dead robber's wallet and have an ice cream cone with his money.

Eta Kooram Nah Smech!


Вот точно причина ты же бывшая жена Рассилиона.
/Ёбка лучше, да?
 
2014-06-12 01:57:00 PM  

mrshowrules: The guy in the link only saved his daughter and this is being reported Nationally. I assume your story must have been made into a major motion picture.


Is this what really passes for logic in your head?  Some sort of crazy assumption that the media works off of a guaranteed coverage scale?  That's so special it creates an all new class of retard.
 
2014-06-12 02:00:06 PM  

Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.


Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.
 
2014-06-12 02:04:00 PM  

mrshowrules: Giltric: mrshowrules: Giltric: mrshowrules: Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)

Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.

Why are subjects to the crown so concerned with the rights of citizens?

Our observance of the Crown is purely symbolic, not unlike how you think you are a soldier protecting your country with your gun collection.  Neither have any basis in practical reality.

I don't have to save my country, I already saved a couple lives in 3 instances....2 of which lead to arrests and one which went unreported.

So 2 lives total or 2 lives in each of 3 instances, for a total of 6.  You saved 6 lives?

The guy in the link only saved his daughter and this is being reported Nationally.  I assume your story must have been made into a major motion picture.


When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

2nd time was when we were doing a job for the city and started to have a series of hydraulic failures. The conspiracy theorists in my crew claimed it was because we outbid the local union shop so I stayed the night on the job site and watched as a guy came onto our job site and started to cut through one of the main hydraulic lines on one of my excavators. I called the police and held him at gunpoint.

3rd time was on another job site but he took off before police arrived.

I never thought to call the newspapers. If I had known that something had to be in the news to be true I probably still wouldn't have bothered.

I haven't seen any articles detailing any rapes today though....does that mean none happened?
 
2014-06-12 02:04:54 PM  

zepher: Dead criminals with a long wrap sheet can only be a benefit to society.
There is no other way to logically look at it.


Wait.

Time.
Farking.
Out.

I can't farky you until you tell me whether that was intentional.
/Because you've shrouded your intentions well, zephyr.
 
2014-06-12 02:04:58 PM  

Elliot8654: Nutsac_Jim: Elliot8654: Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.

People generally are not simply happy that someone got shot.  They don't mind that some dirt-bag was shot.

Never forget that to someone out there, I am a bleeding heart libtard dirt-bag, someone else in this thread is a tea party gun nut dirt-bag, and you are a dirtbag to someone else.

Dirt-bag is not a good reason to not care if someone gets killed.

I bet he thought the people he was robbing and the person he killed were rich dirt bags.


what about douche bags? Is it ok that I'm kinda 'meh' when one of them gets, well maybe not outright killed per se, but maimed, or gets nasty roadrash falling off their motorbike when running a red at 80mph?
 
2014-06-12 02:05:27 PM  

FTDA: Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.

Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.


As a sovereign nation, America has the right to act as it sees fit within its own borders. A right it does not grant to most other nations.....

But regardless, armed citizenry did not defeat the Germans. A heavily armed military did. So since your military is so strong, you don't need your guns for that, right?

Oh, they are to defend yourself? By all means, carry on. Enjoy.

I am bemused that you think my having an opinion automatically thinks it is trying to override your rights. Do you really find your rights that flimsy?
 
2014-06-12 02:06:58 PM  

Duke_leto_Atredes: 5 star chef of tv dinners: rikdanger: From the Comments:
"Winomaster, St Louis, United States, 2 hours ago

I live just down the street from this incident. The problem we have in this country is that after we have ample evidence of who the bad apples are, we allow them to continue to run loose. There are some habitable islands off the coast of Alaska that could work as good cost effective prison colonies. This is especially cost effective because we could also use that same island for a firing range for Navy battleships"

[mlkshk.com image 330x186]

How is that cost effective?  There is a chance that you could hit the prison and then you would have to keep rebuilding these things.  Long-term outlook isn't very good with this plan.

No construction needed, just a perimeter mine field in depth and sea mines as well. Drop the farktards out of a helicopter and be done with it. Coventry.


This guy had the best plan for this solution:
www.soulwinning.info
 
2014-06-12 02:07:12 PM  

FTDA: Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice. (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events,


it's not an oversimplification of events, it's an entirely delusional version of them.
 
2014-06-12 02:18:39 PM  

Elliot8654: FTDA: Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.

Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.

As a sovereign nation, America has the right to act as it sees fit within its own borders. A right it does not grant to most other nations.....


Yes, we have that right, do you not? Are we to blame that you don't?

But regardless, armed citizenry did not defeat the Germans. A heavily armed military did. So since your military is so strong, you don't need your guns for that, right?

Correct, there was only one nation that was stupid enough to try it, and then they lost.

Oh, they are to defend yourself? By all means, carry on. Enjoy.

We are, just as this news account points out.

I am bemused that you think my having an opinion automatically thinks it is trying to override your rights. Do you really find your rights that flimsy?

Nice try there at flimsy. I'm thinking of countries that have flimsy self defense rights. Can you think of one?
 
2014-06-12 02:23:34 PM  

kerrigand: Elliot8654: FTDA: Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.

Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.

As a sovereign nation, America has the right to act as it sees fit within its own borders. A right it does not grant to most other nations.....

Yes, we have that right, do you not? Are we to blame that you don't?

But regardless, armed citizenry did not defeat the Germans. A heavily armed military did. So since your military is so strong, you don't need your guns for that, right?

Correct, there was only one nation that was stupid enough to try it, and then they lost.

Oh, they are to defend yourself? By all means, carry on. Enjoy.

We are, just as this news account points out.

I am bemused that you think my having an opinion automatically thinks it is trying to override your rights. Do you really find your rights that flimsy?

Nice try there at flimsy. I'm thinking of countries that have flimsy self defense rights. Can you think of one?


Your writing reeks of a smug American superiority complex. Why is this so common? What gives you this impression that by virtue of being from America you are better than other people? Or because your country has the biggest military complex you always think you are right?
 
2014-06-12 02:25:37 PM  

RisaTravelAgent: Has anyone pointed out this was a home defense situation?
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable for a society to allow their citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves and their loved ones in their home.
Also, I think it is bat-shait crazy for a society to allow gun uts to run around in public carrying loaded guns.
A successful home self defense incident does not justify concealed or open carry laws so let's not conflate the two!


We're allowed to protect our family at home, but not in our cars and on the street? We must submit to robbery, rape, assault, etc in the yard, but not past the door? That doesn't sound very civilized to me.
 
2014-06-12 02:34:09 PM  

Elliot8654: kerrigand: Elliot8654: FTDA: Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.

Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.

As a sovereign nation, America has the right to act as it sees fit within its own borders. A right it does not grant to most other nations.....

Yes, we have that right, do you not? Are we to blame that you don't?

But regardless, armed citizenry did not defeat the Germans. A heavily armed military did. So since your military is so strong, you don't need your guns for that, right?

Correct, there was only one nation that was stupid enough to try it, and then they lost.

Oh, they are to defend yourself? By all means, carry on. Enjoy.

We are, just as this news account points out.

I am bemused that you think my having an opinion automatically thinks it is trying to override your rights. Do you really find your rights that flimsy?

Nice try there at flimsy. I'm thinking of countries that have flimsy self defense rights. Can you think of one?

Your writing reeks of a smug American superiority complex. Why is this so common? What gives you this impression that by virtue of being from America you are better than other people? Or because your country has the biggest military complex you always think you are right?


And your's doesn't?
 
2014-06-12 02:44:02 PM  

Elliot8654: kerrigand: Elliot8654: FTDA: Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.

Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.

As a sovereign nation, America has the right to act as it sees fit within its own borders. A right it does not grant to most other nations.....

Yes, we have that right, do you not? Are we to blame that you don't?

But regardless, armed citizenry did not defeat the Germans. A heavily armed military did. So since your military is so strong, you don't need your guns for that, right?

Correct, there was only one nation that was stupid enough to try it, and then they lost.

Oh, they are to defend yourself? By all means, carry on. Enjoy.

We are, just as this news account points out.

I am bemused that you think my having an opinion automatically thinks it is trying to override your rights. Do you really find your rights that flimsy?

Nice try there at flimsy. I'm thinking of countries that have flimsy self defense rights. Can you think of one?

Your writing reeks of a smug American superiority complex. Why is this so common? What gives you this impression that by virtue of being from America you are better than other people? Or because your country has the biggest military complex you always think you are right?


13 million illegal immigrants seem to think we are pretty ok.
 
2014-06-12 02:52:23 PM  

EatenTheSun: 13 million illegal immigrants seem to think we are pretty ok.


And thats only counting the ones who came here this week.

/try the veal
 
2014-06-12 02:53:51 PM  

Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

2nd time was when we were doing a job for the city and started to have a series of hydraulic failures. The conspiracy theorists in my crew claimed it was because we outbid the local union shop so I stayed the night on the job site and watched as a guy came onto our job site and started to cut through one of the main hydraulic lines on one of my excavators. I called the police and held him at gunpoint.

3rd time was on another job site but he took off before police arrived.

I never thought to call the newspapers. If I had known that something had to be in the news to be true I probably still wouldn't have bothered.

I haven't seen any articles detailing any rapes today though....does that mean none happened?


Based on your previous post I imagine you saved the lives of 6 people through various shoot-outs.

I wouldn't expect any of those stories to make the news because they were all pretty lame.  I find it funny that in none of your examples, was a gun actually required to achieve the outcome that resulted.
 
2014-06-12 02:57:43 PM  

Click Click D'oh: mrshowrules: The guy in the link only saved his daughter and this is being reported Nationally. I assume your story must have been made into a major motion picture.

Is this what really passes for logic in your head?  Some sort of crazy assumption that the media works off of a guaranteed coverage scale?  That's so special it creates an all new class of retard.


Cool story bro was the sentiment I was expressing.  Don't be pedantic.  I wasn't truly expecting the absence of a motion picture to be proof of anything.
 
2014-06-12 03:00:44 PM  

Elliot8654: FTDA: Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.

Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.

As a sovereign nation, America has the right to act as it sees fit within its own borders. A right it does not grant to most other nations.....

(That's pretty damn funny coming from a country that had Empirical aspirations.)
But regardless, armed citizenry did not defeat the Germans. A heavily armed military did. So since your military is so strong, you don't need your guns for that, right?
(That armed populace has kept heavily armed militarys from invading since 1812.)
Oh, they are to defend yourself? By all means, carry on. Enjoy.
(Yes they are, and yes I will.)
I am bemused that you think my having an opinion automatically thinks it is trying to override your rights. Do you really find your rights that flimsy?

(No my rights aren't flimsy.  Why do you think your opinion or tiresome argument is strong enough to over ride them?)

/Keep farting through that  bullhorn.  Eventually you'll find someone that's willing to listen to your shiat.
 
2014-06-12 03:01:47 PM  

mrshowrules: I find it funny that in none of your examples, was a gun actually required to achieve the outcome that resulted.


A gun is never 'required'.  It is, however, the right tool for the job in certain circumstances.
 
2014-06-12 03:15:11 PM  

Dimensio: joness0154: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The teenager's mother also fired shots. The bullets from the gunfire went all the way across the street, into a neighbor's home.

No bystanders got injured, 1 dead perp, and 1 critically wounded perp.

How is this not a win/win for everyone?

How, exactly, were the criminals winners in this incident?


At least one of them will never go to jail again, which is nice.
 
2014-06-12 03:16:50 PM  

mrshowrules: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

2nd time was when we were doing a job for the city and started to have a series of hydraulic failures. The conspiracy theorists in my crew claimed it was because we outbid the local union shop so I stayed the night on the job site and watched as a guy came onto our job site and started to cut through one of the main hydraulic lines on one of my excavators. I called the police and held him at gunpoint.

3rd time was on another job site but he took off before police arrived.

I never thought to call the newspapers. If I had known that something had to be in the news to be true I probably still wouldn't have bothered.

I haven't seen any articles detailing any rapes today though....does that mean none happened?

Based on your previous post I imagine you saved the lives of 6 people through various shoot-outs.

I wouldn't expect any of those stories to make the news because they were all pretty lame.   I find it funny that in none of your examples, was a gun actually required to achieve the outcome that resulted.


Yeah but I didn't even fire into the ceiling and tell them to get out....By holding them at gunpoint they were assured that I meant to do them harm.

They had to trust me.
 
2014-06-12 03:36:28 PM  

uttertosh: FTDA: Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice. (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events,

it's not an oversimplification of events, it's an entirely delusional version of them.


Says the person that hates everything American and takes every opportunity to pour derision upon us?  The only thing people conjure in their minds when they think of Sweden are a Bikini Team and a very awesome muppet.

/ So, bork bork bork to you good sir!
 
2014-06-12 03:40:14 PM  

Giltric: mrshowrules: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

2nd time was when we were doing a job for the city and started to have a series of hydraulic failures. The conspiracy theorists in my crew claimed it was because we outbid the local union shop so I stayed the night on the job site and watched as a guy came onto our job site and started to cut through one of the main hydraulic lines on one of my excavators. I called the police and held him at gunpoint.

3rd time was on another job site but he took off before police arrived.

I never thought to call the newspapers. If I had known that something had to be in the news to be true I probably still wouldn't have bothered.

I haven't seen any articles detailing any rapes today though....does that mean none happened?

Based on your previous post I imagine you saved the lives of 6 people through various shoot-outs.

I wouldn't expect any of those stories to make the news because they were all pretty lame.   I find it funny that in none of your examples, was a gun actually required to achieve the outcome that resulted.

Yeah but I didn't even fire into the ceiling and tell them to get out....By holding them at gunpoint they were assured that I meant to do them harm.

They had to trust me.


When did you call the police?
 
2014-06-12 03:52:23 PM  

Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: I think I need to move back to England.

Go look up all factors of societal health, and tell me America is still the best country ever.

The only "freedom" you have that the rest of the world doesn't is its so much easier to get a gun. Go look up what other countries have. Check out Germany.


Thats simply not true. Although freedom of speach is a little more restricted in America than I would like, Europe is far more restrictive.

Or how about ASBOs in jolly England where a court can impose punishment on someone not for breaking a law, but simply for being different from others.


As far as self defense goes, its pretty hard to defend yourself when you don't have the tools to do so.


Your mention of Germany is awesome since you can get guns fairly easily there.
 
2014-06-12 03:54:37 PM  

Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)


I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.
 
2014-06-12 03:54:48 PM  

Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.


Correct it is wonderful. You don't have a duty to die.

Murdering or torturing home invasion victims is one of the most common outcomes of cooperation.
 
2014-06-12 03:56:32 PM  

Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: Elliot8654: How do you not understand this? If someone steals something, they can be arrested and return it. If they break something, you can make them pay for it.

Maybe.  If you catch them, and if they have the ability to pay for it.

But if they had gotten in the house and disarmed the parents, we don't know what they would have done.  Maybe they would have taken what they wanted and killed the three witnesses.  One of them had been charged with murder before, with the case dropped due to lack of witnesses.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.

Wonderful.

We crafted our indefinite detention on your Diplock Courts....don't start preaching about innocent before guilt.

So because England did it ages ago, the us bill of rights and Constitution doesn't apply in America anymore?

What kind of authoritarian are you? Do no amendments but the second matter to you?


England still does it on paper. The british courts are simply ignoring their own laws.
 
2014-06-12 03:58:28 PM  

amoral: Giltric: Elliot8654: Giltric: Elliot8654: JuggleGeek: starsrift: If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll entertain it. Tell me how guns made this better.

The girl got away unharmed, one of the thugs is dead, and the other is wounded and will spend most of his life in jail.

Your version is "Let the criminals have whatever the hell they want", and it is *not* better.

Now, please demonstrate how you know they would have killed the girl, and not just taken money and fled, to be caught later?

We have what actually happened, and we have your blind conjecture as to what you think might happen if they weren't armed.

Don't forget, a gunman lost to a college kid with pepper spray. Guns aren't the end all answer.

It could have went your way....or it could have went this way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_mu rd ers

If you can see into the furture why are you posting on Fark instead of reaping the powerball millions while sitting on a beach drinking out of a coconut?

I can't. And neither can you. So the first thing that has to stop is people claiming all the good that guns do just by being ubiquitous in America.
"Well see, if they are armed this wouldn't have happened." Is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

"Think of what might have happened if they weren't armed" is a close second.

Yes but I am armed so it doesn't matter what actually happens, the worst case scenario is covered instead of wishing I was armed when the worst case scenario happens.

You don't keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen because you are going to set fire to the kitchen, you have it for when you do set fire to the kitchen.

Having a fire extinguisher never makes a fire get worse, nor does it make a fire more likely. Nor are there serious repercussions if you use the fire extinguisher, but it turns out there was just smoke.


Actually that isn't true.
 
2014-06-12 03:59:17 PM  

IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.


I saw a guy hitting his girlfriend outside a bar once.  I intervened and they both turned on me so I got the fark out of there.  That's what reality looks like.
 
2014-06-12 04:01:14 PM  

mrshowrules: Giltric: mrshowrules: Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)

Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.

Why are subjects to the crown so concerned with the rights of citizens?

Our observance of the Crown is purely symbolic, not unlike how you think you are a soldier protecting your country with your gun collection.  Neither have any basis in practical reality.


There have been armed lawful revolts in the US.

Civilian firearm posession also conviced Japan that a full on invasion was impossible; without civilian ownership the pre/early war military was pretty impotent.
 
2014-06-12 04:04:06 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The 17-year-old had been fetching items from her car outside her home in St Louis, Missouri around 11pm when the two men grabbed her, put a gun to her head and forced her up to the front door as a human shield.

The girl's father, 34, saw the men approaching with his teen daughter and grabbed his own gun to fire shots at them from the home where a five-year-old boy was also present.

So I want to rob someone so I wait til the father who doesn't live there is home and instead of busting the door in or a window I take a hostage on the street and try to negotiate my way in? And the father has time to get his gun and shoot me around his daughter while me and my partner can't hit anyone and neither can mom? I guess that could happen...but I won't be surprised if there's more to this story.

McClinton was charged with second-degree murder for the death of his alleged accomplice, and a judge ordered him held on a $1 million cash-only bond, the station reports. A spokesman for the circuit attorney's office told CBS St. Louis that if someone dies during the commission of a felony - even a suspect - murder charges can be filed. The charge is also referred to as felony murder.

Heh.


Robbers and burglers don't really take the time to think things through. Especially ones who have murdered people before. They tend to be very impulsive. A young girl looks like a great target.
 
2014-06-12 04:05:39 PM  

Dimensio: mschwenk: cwolf20: Considering how screwed up society is. I was expecting the father to be arrested for murder, and the daughter to be brought up on charges of being an accessory.

Luckily this didn't happen in Chicago, New York City, Maryland, Washington DC, or Massachusetts.

Residents of those places could still use pepper spray. The Massachusetts legislature even voted to remove the requirement of possessing a firearms identification card for purchasing and possessing pepper spray.


I take it you've never worked with pepper spray before.
 
2014-06-12 04:05:41 PM  

mrshowrules: That's what reality looks like.


Why not both?  I would tend to think that reality would have enough room where there could be both an argument that turns to fisticuffs and domestic violence where intervention is truly needed.  Pretending that only one exists in reality is - well - not dealing with reality.
 
2014-06-12 04:07:52 PM  

mschwenk: mrshowrules: Giltric: mrshowrules: Click Click D'oh: Giltric: I like Pat Mcnamaras training course.

He makes you run around and lift heavy things and throw them around before shooting so your arms are tired and you're breathing and heart rate is increased.

We have on occasion had people a little over confident in their abilities while performing the state mandated qualifications, so we give them the <Insert company name here> Qualification + Course.

This consists of having them run a lap around the office complex next to our facility.  While they are out there doing that, the range instructor field strips their firearm on the bench, turns out the lights on the range and turns on a beat up old light bar we took off a wrecked car.  When the shooter gets back in, they have to re-assemble their firearm and conduct the prescribed course of fire while the instructor is yelling at them with a bullhorn.

Needless to say, there are some common themes:
1) People new to the profession universally do terribly.
2) Deflating egos is fun.
3) It's well known that you don't take a 1911 to qualification :)

Yet a person with absolutely no training can manage to kill a fark load of people.  Also, a person with zero training cap exercise perfect gun safety by not buying/owning a gun.

Why are subjects to the crown so concerned with the rights of citizens?

Our observance of the Crown is purely symbolic, not unlike how you think you are a soldier protecting your country with your gun collection.  Neither have any basis in practical reality.

There have been armed lawful revolts in the US.

Civilian firearm posession also conviced Japan that a full on invasion was impossible; without civilian ownership the pre/early war military was pretty impotent.


A land invasion by Japan would have been a non-starter regardless if you had any guns or not.  It is a strawman argument anyways because no sensible gun control supports are advocating disarming the US citizenry.

Do you seriously view gun nuts as having more than a symbolic role in terms of protection American National security?
 
2014-06-12 04:12:28 PM  

HeadLever: mrshowrules: That's what reality looks like.

Why not both?  I would tend to think that reality would have enough room where there could be both an argument that turns to fisticuffs and domestic violence where intervention is truly needed.  Pretending that only one exists in reality is - well - not dealing with reality.


Fiction has holes in it.  I will comment after my question is answered.
 
2014-06-12 04:16:28 PM  

mrshowrules: Fiction has holes in it.


Sometimes, so does reality when brevity is used.
 
2014-06-12 04:17:58 PM  

mrshowrules: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

I saw a guy hitting his girlfriend outside a bar once.  I intervened and they both turned on me so I got the fark out of there.  That's what reality looks like.


I'm not saying he should have intervened just that the manner in which he did it was about the worst possible way.
 
2014-06-12 04:20:12 PM  

mrshowrules: Do you seriously view gun nuts as having more than a symbolic role in terms of protection American National security?


Well, since pretty much 95% of the US military is made up of these 'gun nuts', yeah.
 
2014-06-12 04:25:50 PM  

HeadLever: mrshowrules: Do you seriously view gun nuts as having more than a symbolic role in terms of protection American National security?

Well, since pretty much 95% of the US military is made up of these 'gun nuts', yeah.


I think we are having a problem of definitions here.

2.bp.blogspot.com
not
www.bubblews.com
 
2014-06-12 04:26:53 PM  

IRQ12: mrshowrules: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

I saw a guy hitting his girlfriend outside a bar once.  I intervened and they both turned on me so I got the fark out of there.  That's what reality looks like.

I'm not saying he should have intervened just that the manner in which he did it was about the worst possible way.


He could have called the cops the first night there was evidence of violence.
 
2014-06-12 04:27:35 PM  

Launch Code: Think of their poor families that now have to deal with the loss.


Depending on where this happened, I'm certain that a lawyer that went to Cooley moron with a JD will take the dead guy's family's case on a contingency basis.  Well, if the folks who refused to be a victim have any assets that they can steal seize through the legal process.
 
2014-06-12 04:28:20 PM  

HeadLever: mrshowrules: Fiction has holes in it.

Sometimes, so does reality when brevity is used.


How does reality have holes in it?
 
2014-06-12 04:30:55 PM  

mrshowrules: I think we are having a problem of definitions here.


How do you know that the two in the top pic are not also in the bottom? Again, there is nothing in your post that makes these mutually exclusive.

Not that I disagree that Open Carry activist are pretty much AWs, but I digress. . .
 
2014-06-12 04:33:05 PM  

mrshowrules: How does reality have holes in it?


How can it not when it is described via two or three sentences on Fark?
 
2014-06-12 04:35:38 PM  
Use my son as a human sword.

Touché!
 
2014-06-12 04:37:44 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Depending on where this happened, I'm certain that a lawyer that went to Cooley moron with a JD will take the dead guy's family's case on a contingency basis. Well, if the folks who refused to be a victim have any assets that they can steal seize through the legal process.


Happened in Missouri.  IIRC, their self defense/castle doctrine laws give immunity to the person legally using deadly force so there won't be a suit.
 
2014-06-12 04:44:17 PM  

HeadLever: mrshowrules: I think we are having a problem of definitions here.

How do you know that the two in the top pic are not also in the bottom? Again, there is nothing in your post that makes these mutually exclusive.

Not that I disagree that Open Carry activist are pretty much AWs, but I digress. . .


The US has real soldiers.  Both active and inactive/retired.  It also has millions of responsible gun owners.

There are also people who pretend to be soldiers, soldiers in waiting, or defenders of the Constitutions.  I'm referring to the latter group, especially those who fixate on their guns as somehow the mere ownership and use of them somehow makes them more patriotic.

Pretend soldiers, gun nuts/fetishists, paranoid militias.  You know, mental children.  To the extent they think of themselves as anything important, it is purely symbolic.  At best symbolic, at worse criminal and traitorous.
 
2014-06-12 04:51:36 PM  

zepher: When a homeowner hears about a home invasion (which happen in far greater numbers than North Hollywood style shootouts) and wants to arm himself against such a threat the homeowner is call 'paranoid', a 'gun nut', someone who lives in fear and a whole host of other derogatory names.

Care to explain why that is?


If the the home invasion happens next door, no.
If the the home invasion happens on the next block, no.
If the the home invasion happens a mile away, no.
If the the home invasion happens on the other side of town, no.
If the the home invasion happens in a crime and/or drug ridden neighborhood, no.

This makes sense.

If it's the people who "hear" about such things happening (usually from FoxNoiseChannel) way on the other side of the farking state or even in a city they have never been in and never will go to ever in their lives, then yes.

As I mentioned upthread, it's not the people in poor or drug infested neighborhoods that have arsenals in their houses that would be the envy of Afghani Insurgents, but white males in white towns way out in big wide flat square areas where a drunk driving arrest actually makes the front page of the local paper for an entire week's worth of issues. They seem to be the ones who are the most afraid of something which has less likelihood of happening to them than being struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket.

They are arming themselves for an event that will happen probably never. That is called paranoia.
 
2014-06-12 04:58:04 PM  

mrshowrules: I'm referring to the latter group,


Then you are talking about a much more narrow group of folks that just gun nuts.

I have been called a gun nut and I probably am to a certain extent.  However I don't own a handgun or an assault weapon.  In fact my favorite firearms are pretty much limited to small caliber single shot, bolt action rifles.  You are not going to play soldier with that.  I don't own one thing that has Tac.... in the name (firearm or clothing related).

However, that does not keep me from arguing that we need to protect the rights currently in the Constitution which many would like to see changed.
 
2014-06-12 04:59:12 PM  
JustGetItRight:Happened in Missouri.  IIRC, their self defense/castle doctrine laws give immunity to the person legally using deadly force so there won't be a suit.

Um, I'm pretty sure that the recent push to statutorily recognize "common sense" in the form of things like "Stand Your Ground", et cetera, is the result of what I'd consider to be "absurd results" like the estates of the Bad Guys suing the Good Guys and winning.
 
2014-06-12 05:01:23 PM  

rewind2846: They are arming themselves for an event that will happen probably never


Deer season?  I have enough meat in the freezer for maybe one more year, but I sure hope it happens by 2015.
 
2014-06-12 05:03:01 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: zepher: Dead criminals with a long wrap sheet can only be a benefit to society.
There is no other way to logically look at it.

Wait.

Time.
Farking.
Out.

I can't farky you until you tell me whether that was intentional.
/Because you've shrouded your intentions well, zephyr.


It was completely intentional :)

/and it's zepher.
 
2014-06-12 05:08:35 PM  

HeadLever: mrshowrules: I'm referring to the latter group,

Then you are talking about a much more narrow group of folks that just gun nuts.

I have been called a gun nut and I probably am to a certain extent.  However I don't own a handgun or an assault weapon.  In fact my favorite firearms are pretty much limited to small caliber single shot, bolt action rifles.  You are not going to play soldier with that.  I don't own one thing that has Tac.... in the name (firearm or clothing related).

However, that does not keep me from arguing that we need to protect the rights currently in the Constitution which many would like to see changed.


I have no issue with people who believe the 2nd Amendment is sacred.  That's fine.  No issue with gun sportsman, hobbiests, collectors, whatever.  People who think gun ownership somehow protects anything other than their own property are misguided.

The idea of the 2nd amendment protecting the country in some way, is bullshiat (ergo symbolic to put it nicely).

What you and other people do with guns is probably harmless but it is also largely unnecessary is my point.  The gun debate has been won by Conservatives.  Victory is yours and no challenge to it in the near future I am certain.  However, let's not pretend the sub-set of gun nuts who think they are patriots by playing soldier are anything more than a dangerous joke.
 
2014-06-12 05:13:50 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Um, I'm pretty sure that the recent push to statutorily recognize "common sense" in the form of things like "Stand Your Ground", et cetera, is the result of what I'd consider to be "absurd results" like the estates of the Bad Guys suing the Good Guys and winning.


You're absolutely right - and since this happened in a state that has already addressed the issue there won't be a suit.
 
2014-06-12 05:15:15 PM  

Elliot8654: Nutsac_Jim: Elliot8654: Explain how dead people is the "best"outcome. I'm glad nothing happened to the family or girl, but people get so happy that someone got shot. I would much prefer no one had to die.

People generally are not simply happy that someone got shot.  They don't mind that some dirt-bag was shot.

Never forget that to someone out there, I am a bleeding heart libtard dirt-bag, someone else in this thread is a tea party gun nut dirt-bag, and you are a dirtbag to someone else.

Dirt-bag is not a good reason to not care if someone gets killed.

I bet he thought the people he was robbing and the person he killed were rich dirt bags.



I don't know about that.  Dirt-bag is usually used in reference to someone you don't care if they exist or not, and the world, in all likelihood is a better off place if they did not.

Bleeding heart libs and tea party douches are simply a matter of viewpoint difference.
I beat no extra heartbeats if one of them is walking behind me on a street.

Dritbags, on the other hand, you worry about your own life ending prematurely due to them.

Very few shed a tear for them.  I'll save mine for their kid that grows up without a parent, but not one tear someone that puts a gun at a girls head.

They are my tears, and I am selfish like that.
 
2014-06-12 05:18:08 PM  

mrshowrules: People who think gun ownership somehow protects anything other than their own property are misguided.


I don't think that.  All my guns are locked up and are pretty much useless for protecting my property in 90% of the circumstances.  The main protection my guns provide is protecting my freezer from becoming too empty.

However, if SHtF, I'll always reserve my right to use them and any other tool I have at my disposal to protect my property and possibly beyond.  Very much doubt that will ever become the case, but it has happened to others before and will again.
 
2014-06-12 05:30:49 PM  

Elliot8654: So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him, and you just speculate worst case scenario, so kill them and ask questions later.


You have to be trolling.  If you aren't, you're as stupid as a box of rocks.
 
2014-06-12 05:47:24 PM  

mrshowrules: Giltric: mrshowrules: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

2nd time was when we were doing a job for the city and started to have a series of hydraulic failures. The conspiracy theorists in my crew claimed it was because we outbid the local union shop so I stayed the night on the job site and watched as a guy came onto our job site and started to cut through one of the main hydraulic lines on one of my excavators. I called the police and held him at gunpoint.

3rd time was on another job site but he took off before police arrived.

I never thought to call the newspapers. If I had known that something had to be in the news to be true I probably still wouldn't have bothered.

I haven't seen any articles detailing any rapes today though....does that mean none happened?

Based on your previous post I imagine you saved the lives of 6 people through various shoot-outs.

I wouldn't expect any of those stories to make the news because they were all pretty lame.   I find it funny that in none of your examples, was a gun actually required to achieve the outcome that resulted.

Yeah but I didn't even fire into the ceiling and tell them to get out....By holding them at gunpoint they were assured that I meant to do them harm.

They had to trust me.

When did you call the police?


Neighbor called the police. They were already in the hall with the phone in their hand and the cord stretched to the maximum.
 
2014-06-12 06:02:25 PM  

IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.


Funny. Cops never mentioned that. I wonder why.

Im going to go out on a limb and say you are such a stickler for laws that you dont break any but if you do you insist the cops dont give you a warning or a break?

Happened daily. One of the things they told us in the acadamy that when responding to a DV or even an EDP is that you wait for backup because once someone goes into handcuffs the victim of the DV or the parents of the EDP might decide that they dont want a loved one taken away and charged, and the victim will turn on you. Since I was living by myself I had no backup with which to rely on. It went on for weeks before I did anything, but I did do something.

When wthe last time you saw a similiar situation and did you use your phone to call 911 or did you use it to take video to show uour friends so you could laugh at it?
 
2014-06-12 06:07:32 PM  

Elliot8654: FTDA: Elliot8654: Click Click D'oh: Elliot8654: ....tell me America is still the best country ever.

Do you have this in merry 'ol England?

Thought not.

So...

You don't have it here either.

What America seems to have in abundance is delusion.

Americans with guns:

Handed Great Britain it's ass twice. (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Saved Great Britains ass from the Germans twice.  (WWI, WWII)

/Yes I know that's an over simplification of events, but it does not change the outcome.
//I'll stick to being an American with a gun and the freedom to defend myself.
///You stick to being a Britain with an opinion and the arrogance to think it over rides our constitutional rights.

As a sovereign nation, America has the right to act as it sees fit within its own borders. A right it does not grant to most other nations.....

But regardless, armed citizenry did not defeat the Germans. A heavily armed military did. So since your military is so strong, you don't need your guns for that, right?

Oh, they are to defend yourself? By all means, carry on. Enjoy.

I am bemused that you think my having an opinion automatically thinks it is trying to override your rights. Do you really find your rights that flimsy?


In ww 1 and 2 the military was the citzenry. Most American soldiers were not professional soldiers, but volunteers and draftees. Previous marksmanship experience played a vital role in their performance.
 
2014-06-12 06:40:12 PM  

Giltric: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Funny. Cops never mentioned that. I wonder why.

Im going to go out on a limb and say you are such a stickler for laws that you dont break any but if you do you insist the cops dont give you a warning or a break?


Yes it is odd they didn't mention that or arrest you.  There's a really good reason it's a crime:  So people don't pull weapons to exercise control over a situation instead of using them in defense of life and limb.

The laws vary a lot but for the most part if you pull a weapon on someone you have put them in fear of their life and they can defend themselves accordingly.  It doesn't matter if you think they have committed a crime.

I'm pro 2nd, as such I will point out that committing a felonious act with your weapon is not a really good argument for the cause.
 
2014-06-12 06:43:29 PM  

FTDA: Says the person that hates everything American and takes every opportunity to pour derision upon us?


lolwut?
 
2014-06-12 06:43:55 PM  

IRQ12: Giltric: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Funny. Cops never mentioned that. I wonder why.

Im going to go out on a limb and say you are such a stickler for laws that you dont break any but if you do you insist the cops dont give you a warning or a break?

Yes it is odd they didn't mention that or arrest you.  There's a really good reason it's a crime:  So people don't pull weapons to exercise control over a situation instead of using them in defense of life and limb.

The laws vary a lot but for the most part if you pull a weapon on someone you have put them in fear of their life and they can defend themselves accordingly.  It doesn't matter if you think they have committed a crime.

I'm pro 2nd, as such I will point out that committing a felonious act with your weapon is not a really good argument for the cause.


If you read the post a few up from him, you'll see the magic phrase "when I was in the academy".

There's your answer.

Thin blue line.
 
2014-06-12 06:52:24 PM  

IRQ12: Giltric: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Funny. Cops never mentioned that. I wonder why.

Im going to go out on a limb and say you are such a stickler for laws that you dont break any but if you do you insist the cops dont give you a warning or a break?

Yes it is odd they didn't mention that or arrest you.  There's a really good reason it's a crime:  So people don't pull weapons to exercise control over a situation instead of using them in defense of life and limb.

The laws vary a lot but for the most part if you pull a weapon on someone you have put them in fear of their life and they can defend themselves accordingly.  It doesn't matter if you think they have committed a crime.

I'm pro 2nd, as such I will point out that committing a felonious act with your weapon is not a really good argument for the cause.


We also drove around with open beers in th 70s

And nobody batted an eye if we yelled at and spanked the neighbors kid


Good times the 70s.
 
2014-06-12 06:52:28 PM  

kendelrio: IRQ12: Giltric: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Funny. Cops never mentioned that. I wonder why.

Im going to go out on a limb and say you are such a stickler for laws that you dont break any but if you do you insist the cops dont give you a warning or a break?

Yes it is odd they didn't mention that or arrest you.  There's a really good reason it's a crime:  So people don't pull weapons to exercise control over a situation instead of using them in defense of life and limb.

The laws vary a lot but for the most part if you pull a weapon on someone you have put them in fear of their life and they can defend themselves accordingly.  It doesn't matter if you think they have committed a crime.

I'm pro 2nd, as such I will point out that committing a felonious act with your weapon is not a really good argument for the cause.

If you read the post a few up from him, you'll see the magic phrase "when I was in the academy".

There's your answer.

Thin blue line.


Ahh I missed that.  It's clear now.
 
2014-06-12 06:57:09 PM  

IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.


Actually, no. He used minimum force to stop a felony in progress (domestic violence). Not assault. Self defense also includes defense of others. You don't know as much as you think you do
 
2014-06-12 07:03:42 PM  
Maybe fark ate my Post due to racial epithets but i left the academy over a speech we were given about how we dont see (about 30 racial epithets go here) all we see are brothers.
 
2014-06-12 07:05:26 PM  

Giltric: IRQ12: Giltric: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Funny. Cops never mentioned that. I wonder why.

Im going to go out on a limb and say you are such a stickler for laws that you dont break any but if you do you insist the cops dont give you a warning or a break?

Yes it is odd they didn't mention that or arrest you.  There's a really good reason it's a crime:  So people don't pull weapons to exercise control over a situation instead of using them in defense of life and limb.

The laws vary a lot but for the most part if you pull a weapon on someone you have put them in fear of their life and they can defend themselves accordingly.  It doesn't matter if you think they have committed a crime.

I'm pro 2nd, as such I will point out that committing a felonious act with your weapon is not a really good argument for the cause.

We also drove around with open beers in th 70s

And nobody batted an eye if we yelled at and spanked the neighbors kid


Good times the 70s.


Sitting in the back rear facing seat of a station wagon. Seat belts? Pshaw! Your moms arm was the only seat belt you needed.

Sleeping on the back dash? Good enough if you had a bunch of kids in the car.

/adjusts onion
//get off my lawn
 
2014-06-12 07:13:30 PM  

ArkAngel: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Actually, no. He used minimum force to stop a felony in progress (domestic violence). Not assault. Self defense also includes defense of others. You don't know as much as you think you do


I'm pretty sure minimum force was him knocking on the door, and it seemed to work.  He didn't describe some situation which he was witnessing a violent assault and intervened.

I know exactly as much as I think I do:  You don't stick your weapon in someones face to control them or as a show of power over the situation.
 
2014-06-12 07:22:55 PM  

Giltric: Maybe fark ate my Post due to racial epithets but i left the academy over a speech we were given about how we dont see (about 30 racial epithets go here) all we see are brothers.


You quit over a speech? What did you think you were signing up for?
 
2014-06-12 07:38:47 PM  

IRQ12: ArkAngel: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Actually, no. He used minimum force to stop a felony in progress (domestic violence). Not assault. Self defense also includes defense of others. You don't know as much as you think you do

I'm pretty sure minimum force was him knocking on the door, and it seemed to work.  He didn't describe some situation which he was witnessing a violent assault and intervened.

I know exactly as much as I think I do:  You don't stick your weapon in someones face to control them or as a show of power over the situation.


In Illinois, he would not be arrested under the lawful use of force statute here. Probably similar in many other states:

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
 
2014-06-12 07:41:01 PM  
1) Center dot on his forehead
2) Exhale half way and pause breathing
3) Gently squeeze trigger
4) Bring daughter to another room


/AKA eliminating immediate threat
 
2014-06-12 09:41:04 PM  

joness0154: IRQ12: ArkAngel: IRQ12: Giltric: When I was younger I had a neighbor in the apartment next door who I could hear beating his girlfriend almost daily.  I got sick of it and knocked on the door and shoved a .38 up his nose. Police responded gave me atta boys and probably beat him on the way to lockup. Neighbors brought me tribute in the form of chicken and rice and we never saw the scumbag again. (Paterson NJ in the 70s)

I hope you know your CSB is felony aggravated assault but kudos I guess.

Not to mention that you say it happened daily and just waited until you were sick of it to act on it?  Nice.

Actually, no. He used minimum force to stop a felony in progress (domestic violence). Not assault. Self defense also includes defense of others. You don't know as much as you think you do

I'm pretty sure minimum force was him knocking on the door, and it seemed to work.  He didn't describe some situation which he was witnessing a violent assault and intervened.

I know exactly as much as I think I do:  You don't stick your weapon in someones face to control them or as a show of power over the situation.

In Illinois, he would not be arrested under the lawful use of force statute here. Probably similar in many other states:

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.


IANAL (or a juror) but in the situation he described not only would use of force not be warranted but use of deadly force would be absurd.  He has no idea what the circumstances are behind the closed doors.  Maybe there was another male abusing the woman, maybe it was mutual.

If he was CCW and the circumstances after knocking met the above criteria I would say 'more power to ya', but it didn't.  Only LEO can brandish as a control mechanism.