Burglar's relative says: "He could have used a warning shot first..."

[kelly4]

I'm saying reasonable threat, my man.

Even if they killed the neighbours there's no way to know that, IMO it's not worth risking my own life (leaving my family without a father/husband) to apprehend a criminal that has already ended the life of my neighbour. Maybe if you heard gunshots, it might be justified, because you'd know shit went down.... but if not, why would you assume there's been a murder or assault?Killing the criminal isn't going to bring my friend (neighbour) back, even if you assume the worst case scenario, and getting myself killed is counter-productive too. If I saw them headed my way, I'd cap their asses, but lets be honest that's not likely...

Even if you're Joe Horn.

Apprehend? I wouldn't try to apprehend anyone, either. Neither would anyone else, that's why they get shot.

 

[UncleBuck]

What of the CCW issued by an individual that is his own government?

Tr00F3R 4 L1F3.

 

[NoDrama]

and made a verbal command, ... which they violated.

You have no authority and they have no duty to listen to you.

 

[twostrokenut]

Would you say crazies are the majority or people, or the minority?

The minority.
I think crazy is becoming more common, just look at all the meds out there.
People are supposed to be doing shit, chopping wood, shooting supper, growing food, staying up all night inventing shit ect...
IMHO we are rejecting our cushy little world on a subconscious level....manifesting in mental disorders.
JMHO though.

I agree. If I'm speaking honestly, as a foreigner, it's one of the things I see as a problem with the USA in particular. It's the attitude towards guns, not guns themselves. As such, it's the attitude of the public towards guns that has shown the propensity in guns ownership.

Unless the attitude towards guns changes on a whole, I can't see the death rates changing either.

How is it we agree that this cultural segment is the problem, yet that goes back to guns?
Of course you speak of deaths by gun, assuming no guns, then no deaths by the same "uppity" urge to scrap over "peanuts" aka pride?

 

[NoDrama]

See, I don't believe in handgun bans. That's just dumb.

But I think it's pertinent to have a rule similar to; If you want to carry a handgun around in public, there are stringent restrictions placed upon you. Seriously, if you want to carry a gun in public, and risk the publics safety with your gun, why should you not be held responsible? Only irresponsible people need fear.... Maintain attendance at a range, and practice! Prove you are capable to hold other peoples' lives in your hands! Afterall, when asking to carry, and use a firearm ina public setting, you have to look further than your own nose.

Were gonna need these same rules for knives too, and clubs, and cars, heavy machinery, plastic bags, fists, feet, elbows etc etc etc

You can kill with anything, its not the gun's fault. Yet you want people to maintain attendance at a range and practice? We don't put that kind of duty upon soldiers or police officers? why should we do that for the average person?

Government cannot make any laws which would interfere with my right to bear arms. Its just that simple, 100% prohibited.


No one ever gets attacked when the babysitter is there.

LOL

 

[twostrokenut]

did they happen to do anything between then and now?

So what? It happened to be the worst, so would lots of less major incidents between then and now be all that appeases you?

"The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person and remains the deadliest in the English-speaking region."


I think I see where you are going with this. Your point must surely be that its not the gun, but the progressive behind the gun.
Which is a US problem, not OZ's.

 

[UncleBuck]

So what? It happened to be the worst, so would lots of less major incidents between then and now be all that appeases you?

"The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person and remains the deadliest in the English-speaking region."


I think I see where you are going with this. Your point must surely be that its not the gun, but the progressive behind the gun.
Which is a US problem, not OZ's.

martin bryant was borderline retarded, which would make him a conservative.

so why no massacres in australia since 1996?

 

[desert dude]

Gun ownership in the US is way up over the last 20 years. Violent crime is way down over the same time period, and is confined almost entirely to Democratic stongholds in inner cities. Clearly, the problem is that Democrats are seething, violence-prone sociopaths.

 

[UncleBuck]

Gun ownership in the US is way up over the last 20 years. Violent crime is way down over the same time period, and is confined almost entirely to Democratic stongholds in inner cities. Clearly, the problem is that Democrats are seething, violence-prone sociopaths.

the problem with that analysis is that it comes from someone with the mental faculties of a retarded wombat.

there is more crime in inner cities because of lower SES. rich people don't tend to go off shooting each other over stuff like desperate and poor people do.

a perfunctory glance at homicidal attitudes on this forum shows conservatives to be the seething, violent, homicidal morons.

for example: kynes would be willing to kill someone over $26 worth of old tires sitting on his overgrown lawn.

 

[Pinworm]

Gun ownership in the US is way up over the last 20 years. Violent crime is way down over the same time period, and is confined almost entirely to Democratic stongholds in inner cities. Clearly, the problem is that Democrats are seething, violence-prone sociopaths.

Dems dems dems....your shit is tired bro.

 

[Beefbisquit]

What of us rural folk who were raised plinking and hunting?
Our range is the back yard.
Our guns are given down from generation to generation.

Why should we pay for such an idea for urbanites that never shot and practiced with their new dick extensions?

What of the CCW issued by an individual that is his own government?
The guy who carries, and never has a problem because him responsible and never has issue?
How do we account for the success of this?

CCW is not plinking. CCW is not threat assessment and target acquisition in an FIBUA situation.

 

[desert dude]

So, you progs don't really give a rat's ass about "gun violence", what you really care about is your pathological fear of guns. If it's violence you care about then a program directed at the perpetrators of the violence would be a good approach, after all, 80% of homicides using a gun are done by gang bangers in inner cities. What is sacrosanct about those perps? You afraid of losing your voting base?

 

[UncleBuck]

So, you progs don't really give a rat's ass about "gun violence", what you really care about is your pathological fear of guns. If it's violence you care about then a program directed at the perpetrators of the violence would be a good approach, after all, 80% of homicides using a gun are done by gang bangers in inner cities. What is sacrosanct about those perps? You afraid of losing your voting base?

gee, no shortage of dog whistles there.

i've been consistent in my belief that we should take steps to mitigate gun massacres, but feel free to keep misrepresenting my position if that makes you feel better or gives you more chances to drop some nice coded language.

 

[desert dude]

gee, no shortage of dog whistles there.

i've been consistent in my belief that we should take steps to mitigate gun massacres, but feel free to keep misrepresenting my position if that makes you feel better or gives you more chances to drop some nice coded language.

Everyone knows that progressives should not be allowed to have guns. Heck, your wife won't let you have one because you are a progressive and she knows you are just a twitch away from a shooting spree.

 

[Pinworm]

So, you progs don't really give a rat's ass about "gun violence", what you really care about is your pathological fear of guns. If it's violence you care about then a program directed at the perpetrators of the violence would be a good approach, after all, 80% of homicides using a gun are done by gang bangers in inner cities. What is sacrosanct about those perps? You afraid of losing your voting base?

I love guns. Guns love me. "80% of gun homicides are done by 'gangbangers in innercities'. Democratic failure? Wrong. You seem scurry about heavily populated areas. Why come, bruh? You afraid too many people would hear your drama, and that you'd get your piece flipped like a little raw cunt. Wags is done, feller. Cuddy-aimigo-compadre-bro would drop you in a hot second. Walk in someone elses 1-5-0's for a minute one time.

[video=youtube;ynwdUUDLlO0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwdUUDLlO0[/video]

 

[UncleBuck]

You seem scurry about heavily populated areas. Why come, bruh?

there's a pretty obvious answer to that one.

 

[Pinworm]

there's a pretty obvious answer to that one.

yerp. it's a sad thing.

 

[desert dude]

You guys don't seem to like simple facts. Why is that?

 

[Pinworm]

You guys don't seem to like simple facts. Why is that?

Answer my rhetorical question first.

 

[UncleBuck]

You guys don't seem to like simple facts. Why is that?

you're concocting delusional theories about why crime happens and accusing us of hating facts?