- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Oh, its already been lost at the bottom of a lake, major faggit!
Today's mass shooting
- Thread starter LotusBud
- Start date
- Messages
- 31,924
Along with what you called a wife?
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Unfortunately, my ex wife is still alive. I would like to see her get ran over by a truck tho!!!
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
I’m a black belt and trained in several other weaponry forms of martial arts; an intruder is at a distinct advantage having a gun and a game plan when busting in. I’m a crack shot when it comes to guns...the intruder would be dead before he even walked into the passageway.If one is vedy vedy quiet in one’s own home, one can surely evade these two visitors yeah? One doesn’t need to arm oneself if one truly knows the art of hide-and-go-seek...and camouflage.
But still...I think you miss the fuckin' point.
When the time comes, is the gunholder sufficienty well trained to fend off a home invader or an assailant? Will they know what to do in order to cunteraract the threat?
The gun loybbists keep pupshing buy more ammo! Buy more guns!
But has it ever occured to them, that being trained in martial arts or counterrorism techniques might actually save their hides before a room full of guns and bullets?
I just think having an armed barracks alone isn't gonna save them when the time comes.
When your family’s life hangs in the balance, one needs to train.
Getting a license for a gun, shouldn’t be any different from getting a driver’s licence. One needs to take some lessons and pass the exams, both theory and practicals. Too easy...
Man, I almost got my black belt, but my sensai moved out of state. I was left teaching the class, after taking it for 8 years.
You know what he told me, if ever in a situation where Im unarmed, and a guy has a gun? Depends how close you are. If you are real close, disable him, if you are not, take cover or run lol.
I did take a gun safety course, in 7th grade, when schools still taught this stuff. Now, they dont have it, so we have a lot clueless kids if their parents dont teach them properly. I taught my son, and sent him to a gun safety course as well. We are properly trained here.
They dont teach kids any life skills. I think Home Economics is still a thing but it's just a cooking class. They dont teach them fuck all about taxes, budgeting, running a home. Nothing about mortgaging or options on owning a home or land.
And they dont teach them how the government works. It's just listing the branches and a simplified explanation of what they do. More memorizing. They don't teach them how it all works or applying that knowledge to real time.
That's why we have so many people (mostly left btw) who dont understand the roles of state government and federal government. This really is on display when they argue for universal healthcare and they show how little they grasp state government.
Alot of them really boast about education, too. They genuinely think they know more because they are "educated"(no specific thing..just generally "educated" and thusly know more about everything). Being fed propaganda in classrooms and media intended to groom them in favor of socialism is "education" to them. I have a woman on my FB who is taking "anti racism" classes. So of course she thinks her psychotic and racist rants are not just okay....but an enlightened and educated view and it's her job to enlighten and educate "other white people".
These classes and materials legit brainwash people and directly encourage them to confront friends and family. Often in some pretty mentally and emotionally abusive manners. They are being radicalized and used for "activism". Its incredibly unethical.
No critical thinking skills are taught either.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Well, lokmar is gonna be teaching a couple of kids about proper use of an AR-10 tomorrow!!!!
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
Also the government is not and never was intended to be our mommy or daddy.
Having guns and being able to use them....for hunting, for defense, for hobby, and even for overthrowing a tyrannical government that no longer serves the best interest of the people....is a constitutional right.
It's not the governments place or job to infringe on that. The governments ONLY job is protect and preserve our rights.
Having guns and being able to use them....for hunting, for defense, for hobby, and even for overthrowing a tyrannical government that no longer serves the best interest of the people....is a constitutional right.
It's not the governments place or job to infringe on that. The governments ONLY job is protect and preserve our rights.
- Messages
- 11,086
That's the diamtric opposite of Canada, Dovey.
Canada is turning into an ultra socialist state. They're even talking about implementing a guaranteed income. How they can afford it is another question. And the current government seems to be on a mission to ban or at least limit acccess to guns.
But yanno if you want free daycare, free healthcare and a host of socialized programs, Quebec'd be the place fer you. They'd take care of your from the cradle to the grave. Only catch is you and your children would have to assimilate and learn French to become one of them.But if yer wlling to become French there'd be a place for you there. Quebec actually has a separate immigration system from the rest of Canada. It's like a country within a country.
Marijuana is legal across the country, so you can smoke it anywhere in public to your heart's content without fear of being arrested for it.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,275
- Location
- No where you'd like to be......
Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
- Messages
- 1,000,003,736
- Location
- Vegas Strip
- Messages
- 11,086
Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is not properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have known how to use it or react quickly enough.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
- Messages
- 11,086
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
Yeah. And he would have had to be close to his gun when it happened. You can't walk around with a gun in your hand 24/7. I laughed when they suggested teachers arm themselves. It would not be possible to teach with a gun in your hand.
- Messages
- 11,086
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
Yeah. And he would have had to be close to his gun when it happened. You can't walk around with a gun in your hand 24/7. I laughed when they suggested teachers arm themselves. It would not be possible to teach with a gun in your hand.
And police as opposed to the Oridinary Joe know wtf they're doing, because they are provided with hours, days (years?) of firearms and counterterrorism training.
A policeman is a complete package who doesn't just come with a gun, but a lot of extras and in between.
Just carrying a gun around alone won't necessarily save a person.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
No, dummy, its none of your business how someone ELSE decides to take THEIR life in THEIR OWN hands.
- Messages
- 20,654
- Location
- Springfield
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
Yeah. And he would have had to be close to his gun when it happened. You can't walk around with a gun in your hand 24/7. I laughed when they suggested teachers arm themselves. It would not be possible to teach with a gun in your hand.
And police as opposed to the Oridinary Joe know wtf they're doing, because they are provided with hours, days (years?) of firearms and counterterrorism training.
A policeman is a complete package who doesn't just come with a gun, but a lot of extras and in between.
Just carrying a gun around alone won't necessarily save a person.
Just carrying around a gun saves people every day. You lib cunts and your media masters never publish the stories of good guy with a gun butchers bad guy with a gun. Thankfully the NRA publishes em though.
- Messages
- 5,275
- Location
- No where you'd like to be......
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
Yeah. And he would have had to be close to his gun when it happened. You can't walk around with a gun in your hand 24/7. I laughed when they suggested teachers arm themselves. It would not be possible to teach with a gun in your hand.
And police as opposed to the Oridinary Joe know wtf they're doing, because they are provided with hours, days (years?) of firearms and counterterrorism training.
A policeman is a complete package who doesn't just come with a gun, but a lot of extras and in between.
Just carrying a gun around alone won't necessarily save a person.
Just carrying around a gun saves people every day. You lib cunts and your media masters never publish the stories of good guy with a gun butchers bad guy with a gun. Thankfully the NRA publishes em though.
Ahhhhhh gotta love the NRA.... :)
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
Yeah. And he would have had to be close to his gun when it happened. You can't walk around with a gun in your hand 24/7. I laughed when they suggested teachers arm themselves. It would not be possible to teach with a gun in your hand.
And police as opposed to the Oridinary Joe know wtf they're doing, because they are provided with hours, days (years?) of firearms and counterterrorism training.
A policeman is a complete package who doesn't just come with a gun, but a lot of extras and in between.
Just carrying a gun around alone won't necessarily save a person.
Having a gun is absolutely a deterrent, and there are countless cases of how someone life was saved BECAUSE they had a fire arm.
You know you cant always access police when you need to.
Would you like to hear some 911 calls where the intruder murders the person while they are on the phone with 911? If they had a gun they could be sitting there still calling for help and able to protect themselves until police can get there.
You dont ever hear about how guns have saved lives. You know why? It's not the kind of news that gets attention. There is no real political agenda to be pushed with those stories. Most of them dont even hit the news.
I know that you guys know.....or SHOULD know....that what gets talked about in the news and media is a very small portion of what happens to people in real everyday life everyday. And politics is so enmeshed into media that only the shit that is useful for a narrative really ever makes it to a headline.
If you only really see or think about the stuff that gets reported on, you are letting a small group of people(corporatist, btw) paint your world view. People with agendas. People who make money off of the pictures they paint.
You can always search up reported incidents in which fire arms saved lives
If EVERYTHING was reported, like times where armed citizens saved lives.....or police going above and beyond for communities, or the work out reaches do, or people who had no insurance still received incredible medical treatments....and everything was reported factually and objectively, you would have a different world view and probably very different opinions.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
I don't want anything for free, Joe. I'm not entitled to the labor or skills of other people anymore than they are entitled to mine. I'm happy to pay fair wages to anyone I have minding my children while I work. The heath care situation is a much deeper discussion but it should not be free. Doctors and nurses should never be government workers. The government has no business in anyones medical decisions and we see right now the mess that makes just regarding narcotic pain killers alone.
Medicine needs to be left to those who are educated and practicing it.
What you are describing isnt liberty.....everyone becomes state/government property, Joe. The government is making the decisions that should be left to the individuals. If the government doesn't want to pay for you to receive a certain treatment or procedure? Oh well for you. Quebec is suffering because of their healthcare. People are forced to wait years sometimes for a diagnosis of cancer and by the time its caught, it's so advanced that person is now fighting for their life.....when it could have been caught and dealt with early. It's just trauma and harm.
And the government decides who they pay to watch your children.
You are basically property.
I would rather go off grid entirely, and I'm not joking at all when I say that. I can survive and be content so long as I'm a free person. I have no desire for free stuff at all and I dont trust it. I'm capitalist so long as the market has a pro constitution ethic that doesnt violate human rights with the use of slave labor/trafficking and the government stays out of it.
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
- Messages
- 45,498
Liberals are a bunch of fucking failures. Period
- Messages
- 11,086
Silence Woman!
I command you....Cease with your nonsnese....NOW!
For Resistance is Futile! heeheeeheee!
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
- Messages
- 37,571
- Location
- Hold on to your wallet.
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
- Messages
- 37,571
- Location
- Hold on to your wallet.
As do I, until then shooter is up one stiff and one player out of the game, I do believe that's a power up for shooter.
- Messages
- 46,067
- Location
- United states
Thats just none of your fukin business josephine. If he wanted to make a run at the dude with a Bible and holy water, thats his prerogative. People in this fukin country aint about to have some cunt like you hold our civil rights hostage while you determine how much training we need.Exactly. The devil is always in the details. If the poor bastard went at him with anything less than a rifle, which seems most plausible, then he didnt stand much of a chance.Thank god this confused already on LEO radar for his widely known psychotically fuckedupness, this patriot was able to freely access guns. But hey, GUNS! amirite?
You are delusional if you think making guns harder to get or banning them would stop things like this.
Dont you guys say you want drugs decriminalized? How is the war on drugs going?
The government has no business infringing on our rights or telling us what we can put it our bodies. More people die from drug use and drug related crimes than shootings.
Its gross how hard you guys work to cling onto tragic events only to push your tyrannical political beliefs and try to act like it's a pass to take away peoples rights.....and how hard you work to ignore everything you cant use.
...but that isn't realy the point.
I'm just pointing out that a challenger who tried to kill the shooter with his gun was himself killed.
So...it's not just about possessing a gun in those istuations, it's also knowing how to use it & being sufficiently trained to prevent one's own death.
And most responsible gun owners know how to do that.
But you definitely can still get shot and killed.
The point is that if you have your own fire arm you have a much better chance to save not just your life, but other innocent peoples lives. A chance that is given to us as constitutional right that should not be infringed on.
Well, given the challenger's death, evidently they don't.
It's one thing to fire as a larget range hobbyist or shoot at a defenseless animal.
It's another when it's an assailant who's trying to kill you.
It's a completely different game, Dovey.
I know, because I've been there.
What about all the challengers in similar situations that took down a violent threat?
How does this ONE guy suddenly represent everyone?
That guy had a right to have his gun to defend himself in a situation just like that. He knew the risk and chose to take it. It's sad he lost that one, absolutely. But that doesnt mean that's ALWAYS how it goes down and that none of us should ever bother because we will just die a few minutes sooner than we would have if we didnt have one.
No, I'm not arguing about the challenger's right to own a gun.
I'm just saying it's somewhat obvious he made the wrong move.
I think he made a mistake.
He must have exposed himself when he went to his car to get the gun.
Otherwise the shooter wouldn't have seen him had he concealed his movements better.
Y'know when someone or something is trying to kill you, you don't give a shit who's right or wrong.
Your first thought is, "How can I make it out of this alive?"
In the end, it doesn't matter who was right or wrong.
Just who came out alive.
Did the person who went to the car to grab his gun actually have his weapon in his hand when he was shot and killed? Or was he going for his gun when he was shot and killed? Being in possession of and attempting to are two completely different things. Of course, if he was seen "going" for his gun and got shot, we can't say that it was a "fair" shootout between him and the assailant. In that manner, you can't say whether or not the person that went for his gun knew how to use it. There are a lot of people that "know" how to use guns that get killed by other shooters. Happens all the time. I do agree with you that in this situation, knowing how to use a firearm is way more relevant than actually just "owning" one. At least the guy tried.....rest his soul.
Well, in which case, that still denotes a lack of training on how to use the proper procedures under such circumstances. Guy would have been better of hiding behind a car instead of trying to play hero, Lokmeer.
But if a person is properly trainied in knowing how to react in those situations, how would he know that? Guy obviously got suckered into the marketing/advertising that the mere presence of a gun would make him invincible.
Even if he had the proper firearmrs he probably wouldn't have knkown how to use it or react quickly enough.
No. it is my business.
Because if I were in the same or similar situation, I'd want to know what to do.
Incidently, these life and death situations don't just crop up in the US.
I think I posted this story before, but in my own city, a realtor got killed by somebody who was trying to break into his home aka a home invasion.
...so it's quite possible in this instance, a gun could have saved his life. But under this supposition, he would have still had to known how to react and what to do to defend himself and his family.
What do you think this Canadian real estate agent should have done in this situation to save himself?
Yeah. And he would have had to be close to his gun when it happened. You can't walk around with a gun in your hand 24/7. I laughed when they suggested teachers arm themselves. It would not be possible to teach with a gun in your hand.
Really Lotus?
They would keep the gun holstered and concealed until they needed it.
No one was suggested they keep it in their hand....wtf lol
