Political Crossfire Forums

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

Jefferson · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3104

Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

That is so ignorant of you. Then again that is what I already expect of you. Your picture of gun owners is what I already expect of ingnorant anti-gun types. Yes I would shoot FIRST at a THREAT TO MY LIFE. This man shot at an identified target. The law is very clear, shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress. This could have been avioded on many levels. I feel sorry for both, but I won't look back if the shooter goes to jail. If he is sent to jail by the his right of due process, then I won't look back because that is democracy in progress. Your common sense test is illegal. What you want to do is illegal. The metering of rights by common sense tests has been decleared illegal by the Supreme Court. Civil rights violator tried it with voting and has been shot down by the Supreme Court.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

This guy's a 40+ yr old single man, who lives with his mother. He has no criminal or mental health record. No reasonable gun control scheme would have restricted him from owning the gun, which was a .22 rifle. Of course we distance ourselves from him.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

Jefferson wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

That is so ignorant of you. Then again that is what I already expect of you. Your picture of gun owners is what I already expect of ingnorant anti-gun types. Yes I would shoot FIRST at a THREAT TO MY LIFE. This man shot at an identified target. The law is very clear, shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress. This could have been avioded on many levels. I feel sorry for both, but I won't look back if the shooter goes to jail. If he is sent to jail by the his right of due process, then I won't look back because that is democracy in progress. Your common sense test is illegal. What you want to do is illegal. The metering of rights by common sense tests has been decleared illegal by the Supreme Court. Civil rights violator tried it with voting and has been shot down by the Supreme Court.

What constitutes a deadly attack in progress? The knife sinking into your flesh?

So long as guns are freely available to anyone of adult age irrespective of their level of common sense this will keep happening, that much should be glaringly obvious to you by now Jefferson.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2364

perdidochas wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

This guy's a 40+ yr old single man, who lives with his mother. He has no criminal or mental health record. No reasonable gun control scheme would have restricted him from owning the gun, which was a .22 rifle. Of course we distance ourselves from him.

Depends on your definition of reasonable, I'd have thought.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

Jefferson wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

That is so ignorant of you. Then again that is what I already expect of you. Your picture of gun owners is what I already expect of ingnorant anti-gun types. Yes I would shoot FIRST at a THREAT TO MY LIFE. This man shot at an identified target. The law is very clear, shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress. This could have been avioded on many levels. I feel sorry for both, but I won't look back if the shooter goes to jail. If he is sent to jail by the his right of due process, then I won't look back because that is democracy in progress. Your common sense test is illegal. What you want to do is illegal. The metering of rights by common sense tests has been decleared illegal by the Supreme Court. Civil rights violator tried it with voting and has been shot down by the Supreme Court.

Really? Your law says shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress, guess what? We have the same here.

What saddens me is that you would feel sorry for a criminal, this is a murder attempt Jefferson, he shot to kill.
:-D
:-D

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

perdidochas wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

This guy's a 40+ yr old single man, who lives with his mother. He has no criminal or mental health record. No reasonable gun control scheme would have restricted him from owning the gun, which was a .22 rifle. Of course we distance ourselves from him.

You are the ones to blame gun lovers, in this forum we heard time and time again shoot first, just in case, shoot to kill and ask questions later.

:-D
:-D

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Blinky wrote: perdidochas wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

This guy's a 40+ yr old single man, who lives with his mother. He has no criminal or mental health record. No reasonable gun control scheme would have restricted him from owning the gun, which was a .22 rifle. Of course we distance ourselves from him.

Depends on your definition of reasonable, I'd have thought.

He used a .22 rifle. In Australia, that's a category A firearm, which is the simplest to get permits for, from my limited research.

No reasonable gun control scheme should keep .22 rifles out of the hands of citizens who have no record of crime or mental illness.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Blinky wrote: Jefferson wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

That is so ignorant of you. Then again that is what I already expect of you. Your picture of gun owners is what I already expect of ingnorant anti-gun types. Yes I would shoot FIRST at a THREAT TO MY LIFE. This man shot at an identified target. The law is very clear, shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress. This could have been avioded on many levels. I feel sorry for both, but I won't look back if the shooter goes to jail. If he is sent to jail by the his right of due process, then I won't look back because that is democracy in progress. Your common sense test is illegal. What you want to do is illegal. The metering of rights by common sense tests has been decleared illegal by the Supreme Court. Civil rights violator tried it with voting and has been shot down by the Supreme Court.

What constitutes a deadly attack in progress? The knife sinking into your flesh?

So long as guns are freely available to anyone of adult age irrespective of their level of common sense this will keep happening, that much should be glaringly obvious to you by now Jefferson.

If this is such a common occurrence, why is it newsworthy worldwide? The reason, is that even in the U.S., this is a freak occurence. Very few gunowners shoot trespassers. It's just not something we do very often.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 6674

Blinky wrote: So long as guns are freely available to anyone of adult age irrespective of their level of common sense this will keep happening, that much should be glaringly obvious to you by now Jefferson.

This is the critical point I think.

There's another post in the Lounge, where someone had his guns stolen, now they're in unlicensed/criminal hands. If they hadn't have been in this guys house in the first place, the criminals would now have less guns. Now take this to it's natural conclusion.... The less guns available to anyone, the less problems with guns.... Simple - yet somehow in this part of the forum, plain, simple logic does not apply...

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 9993

dupe post by the way...

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63249&highlight=

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

That is so ignorant of you. Then again that is what I already expect of you. Your picture of gun owners is what I already expect of ingnorant anti-gun types. Yes I would shoot FIRST at a THREAT TO MY LIFE. This man shot at an identified target. The law is very clear, shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress. This could have been avioded on many levels. I feel sorry for both, but I won't look back if the shooter goes to jail. If he is sent to jail by the his right of due process, then I won't look back because that is democracy in progress. Your common sense test is illegal. What you want to do is illegal. The metering of rights by common sense tests has been decleared illegal by the Supreme Court. Civil rights violator tried it with voting and has been shot down by the Supreme Court.

Really? Your law says shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress, guess what? We have the same here.

What saddens me is that you would feel sorry for a criminal, this is a murder attempt Jefferson, he shot to kill.
:-D
:-D A criminal "IS" a criminal. Shooting a person who is clearly no threat, and a person standing at the front of your property is not an immediate threat, Is a crime. I'm sure he will go to prison, as he should!

I ask, is this story a reflection of the man, or his firearm?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Onevote wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: WORTHINGTON, Ohio - A teenager out looking for ghosts with friends was shot in the head and critically wounded near a house considered spooky by local teens, police said.
A man who lives in the house, Allen S. Davis, 40, was charged in the shooting and told reporters from jail that he was trying to drive off trespassers and didn't intend to hurt the teen girls, whom he called juvenile delinquents.

He said he fired his rifle out his bedroom window Tuesday night after hearing voices outside the home, which is across the street from a cemetery and blocked from view by overgrown trees and shrubbery.

"I didn't know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you're going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."

Full article:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/24/1156012653396.html

Shoot first, ask questions later. Typical gun owner mentality, or bad apple ruining it for everybody?
It doesn't really matter either way because his "reasons" (see bolded section above) for shooting first and asking questions later have been echoed almost verbatim by numerous posters on this very forum.
Cue the gun-nuts furiously distancing themselves from the offender in this instance. Again - it doesn't matter, the issue is gun control. Had stricter gun-control been in place (be it the "common sense test" OneZero famously rubbished the idea of, or just plain restricted availability), this would have been avoided.

That is so ignorant of you. Then again that is what I already expect of you. Your picture of gun owners is what I already expect of ingnorant anti-gun types. Yes I would shoot FIRST at a THREAT TO MY LIFE. This man shot at an identified target. The law is very clear, shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress. This could have been avioded on many levels. I feel sorry for both, but I won't look back if the shooter goes to jail. If he is sent to jail by the his right of due process, then I won't look back because that is democracy in progress. Your common sense test is illegal. What you want to do is illegal. The metering of rights by common sense tests has been decleared illegal by the Supreme Court. Civil rights violator tried it with voting and has been shot down by the Supreme Court.

Really? Your law says shooting is only legal with a deadly attack in progress, guess what? We have the same here.

What saddens me is that you would feel sorry for a criminal, this is a murder attempt Jefferson, he shot to kill.
:-D
:-D A criminal "IS" a criminal. Shooting a person who is clearly no threat, and a person standing at the front of your property is not an immediate threat, Is a crime. I'm sure he will go to prison, as he should!

I ask, is this story a reflection of the man, or his firearm?

He will go to prison, and most gunowners support that.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

Ssushi wrote: Blinky wrote: So long as guns are freely available to anyone of adult age irrespective of their level of common sense this will keep happening, that much should be glaringly obvious to you by now Jefferson.

This is the critical point I think.

There's another post in the Lounge, where someone had his guns stolen, now they're in unlicensed/criminal hands. If they hadn't have been in this guys house in the first place, the criminals would now have less guns. Now take this to it's natural conclusion.... The less guns available to anyone, the less problems with guns.... Simple - yet somehow in this part of the forum, plain, simple logic does not apply... Flawed logic at best! Will getting rid of guns will solve, murder? Rape? robbery? If so I
m right there with you. Let's ban them all. If it will stop these crimes. But it won't and you know it.

Why don't we quit being pu**ies and punish people for these crimes. Our seemingly high tolerance for these criminals and weak punishment is no deterrence.

First, Prison should be prison, No air conditioning, no play time, no TV, Just busting rocks on the old rock pile.

Unarmed burglary: min. 10 years.

Armed robbery should be: life without parole( on the rock pile)

Rape: Death

Intentional murder: Death

You get the picture. This would do more to deter crime than a gun ban.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 6674

Onevote wrote: Ssushi wrote: Blinky wrote: So long as guns are freely available to anyone of adult age irrespective of their level of common sense this will keep happening, that much should be glaringly obvious to you by now Jefferson.

This is the critical point I think.

There's another post in the Lounge, where someone had his guns stolen, now they're in unlicensed/criminal hands. If they hadn't have been in this guys house in the first place, the criminals would now have less guns. Now take this to it's natural conclusion.... The less guns available to anyone, the less problems with guns.... Simple - yet somehow in this part of the forum, plain, simple logic does not apply... Flawed logic at best! Will getting rid of guns will solve, murder? Rape? robbery? If so I
m right there with you. Let's ban them all. If it will stop these crimes. But it won't and you know it.

Why don't we quit being pu**ies and punish people for these crimes. Our seemingly high tolerance for these criminals and weak punishment is no deterrence.

First, Prison should be prison, No air conditioning, no play time, no TV, Just busting rocks on the old rock pile.

Unarmed burglary: min. 10 years.

Armed robbery should be: life without parole( on the rock pile)

Rape: Death

Intentional murder: Death

You get the picture. This would do more to deter crime than a gun ban.

You missed the point. The more guns that non-criminals have, the more criminals sneed guns and the more guns there as for criminals to obtain.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 13044 Location: idaho

Ever notice how the media always takes these type of rare things and blowsit all out of shape?

Now, not that many of us have the BS mentality of shoot to kill as one idiot put here. If need be you shoot and if need be you shoot to kill. You shoot to defend yourself and in the dark you do not know if you hit the target or not till the smoke clears.

In a court they will decide if he shot to kill or if he shot to defend. We have an article from a link to base the assumptions on. Let the courts decide and if he is found guilty of homcide or manslaughter send him away.
The use of a gun does not reflect the value of many (vast majority) of gun owners. Nor does the shoot to kill mentality.

Gun are available to any american citizen if they meet criteria blinky.
The fact that this caliber of gun was highlighted by the media is that it is not that common. The anti gun folks want to play this one as well and make a big thing of it. The fact that a person is dead must not be overlooked in any way. The fact is that with no record and no history of crime or criminal intent he has not failed in any area to own or posess.

Removing gunsfrom american hands as one particular foreigner wants to do, will not stop crime. It has not even slowed it down in nations where they have no rights to own.
There was a bumper sticker out and around for awhile and it read this way:
It did not work in your land why the hell would it work here?

But I have gotten away from the whole post here. Sorry!

Let the courts decide and if found guilty put him away.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

lilwolf wrote: Ever notice how the media always takes these type of rare things and blowsit all out of shape?

Now, not that many of us have the BS mentality of shoot to kill as one idiot put here. If need be you shoot and if need be you shoot to kill. You shoot to defend yourself and in the dark you do not know if you hit the target or not till the smoke clears.

In a court they will decide if he shot to kill or if he shot to defend. We have an article from a link to base the assumptions on. Let the courts decide and if he is found guilty of homcide or manslaughter send him away.
The use of a gun does not reflect the value of many (vast majority) of gun owners. Nor does the shoot to kill mentality.

Gun are available to any american citizen if they meet criteria blinky.
The fact that this caliber of gun was highlighted by the media is that it is not that common. The anti gun folks want to play this one as well and make a big thing of it. The fact that a person is dead must not be overlooked in any way. The fact is that with no record and no history of crime or criminal intent he has not failed in any area to own or posess.

The girl is not dead. She is in intensive care, but the last I read, her prognosis is pretty good.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 13044 Location: idaho

Well, I'll be damned... Last night my local TV outlet for NBC was saying she was dead..... I am happy she is not. Thank God. :woo:

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3448 Location: London

perdidochas wrote: lilwolf wrote: Ever notice how the media always takes these type of rare things and blowsit all out of shape?

Now, not that many of us have the BS mentality of shoot to kill as one idiot put here. If need be you shoot and if need be you shoot to kill. You shoot to defend yourself and in the dark you do not know if you hit the target or not till the smoke clears.

In a court they will decide if he shot to kill or if he shot to defend. We have an article from a link to base the assumptions on. Let the courts decide and if he is found guilty of homcide or manslaughter send him away.
The use of a gun does not reflect the value of many (vast majority) of gun owners. Nor does the shoot to kill mentality.

Gun are available to any american citizen if they meet criteria blinky.
The fact that this caliber of gun was highlighted by the media is that it is not that common. The anti gun folks want to play this one as well and make a big thing of it. The fact that a person is dead must not be overlooked in any way. The fact is that with no record and no history of crime or criminal intent he has not failed in any area to own or posess.

The girl is not dead. She is in intensive care, but the last I read, her prognosis is pretty good.

Brilliant, he shoots an unarmed teenage girl who took a 'few steps' onto his property in the head, she almost dies, and he comes up with the following quote:

"It's really something how homeowners defend themselves and the way the laws are written, we're the ones brought up on charges while the perpetrators get little or nothing."

Absolutely classic. Now, pro-gunners - if he did not have a gun, do you think she would have got shot in the head or not? For 10 points? For 20 points??

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: lilwolf wrote: Ever notice how the media always takes these type of rare things and blowsit all out of shape?

Now, not that many of us have the BS mentality of shoot to kill as one idiot put here. If need be you shoot and if need be you shoot to kill. You shoot to defend yourself and in the dark you do not know if you hit the target or not till the smoke clears.

In a court they will decide if he shot to kill or if he shot to defend. We have an article from a link to base the assumptions on. Let the courts decide and if he is found guilty of homcide or manslaughter send him away.
The use of a gun does not reflect the value of many (vast majority) of gun owners. Nor does the shoot to kill mentality.

Gun are available to any american citizen if they meet criteria blinky.
The fact that this caliber of gun was highlighted by the media is that it is not that common. The anti gun folks want to play this one as well and make a big thing of it. The fact that a person is dead must not be overlooked in any way. The fact is that with no record and no history of crime or criminal intent he has not failed in any area to own or posess.

The girl is not dead. She is in intensive care, but the last I read, her prognosis is pretty good.

Brilliant, he shoots an unarmed teenage girl who took a 'few steps' onto his property in the head, she almost dies, and he comes up with the following quote:

"It's really something how homeowners defend themselves and the way the laws are written, we're the ones brought up on charges while the perpetrators get little or nothing."

Absolutely classic. Now, pro-gunners - if he did not have a gun, do you think she would have got shot in the head or not? For 10 points? For 20 points??

He's a loon, whether diagnosed or not.

She's hurt, because of his actions. It doesn't matter the tool he used.