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 458
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

18831 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2014 at 4:36 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 10:36:32 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.


Piers? Is that you? Sorry about what happened at CNN :(
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report