Gun Legislation

[O Really]

That was a genius commercial. That business got its money's worth.

Yes, it was clever - but what works in Bakersfield doesn't necessarily work everywhere. Here's a question for you - other than the bad guy, what was outside the door she blasted through? How far to the street? To the neighbors house? To the neighbor walking his dog across the street? To a car going by? Since she was able to hide from sight, might she have considered waiting until he got through the door to shoot him? Would be better for her defense if she needed one, and she wouldn't have been at risk for a prison sentence for shooting the floor like the woman in Florida. Yes, the ad made it seem very clear that it was an intruder, and he did intend harm, but I wouldn't want people to get the idea that her response was the wisest or in her best interest. Been a lot of people shot their own kids or the FedEx guy with her type of quick-trigger.

[rstrong]

Been a lot of people shot their own kids or the FedEx guy with her type of quick-trigger.

Or the Japanese kid - in a tuxedo - who knocked on the wrong door, and was walking away when the homeowner stepped outside and shot and killed him. (The homeowner, having "felt threatened", was found not guilty.)

[Roland Deschain]

Score another for the good guys:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10 ... ust-pizza/

Wonder what the outcome would have been had he NOT been armed? Would the driver be dead, injured, and a criminal running free? What would the police response time have been? As for me I prefer this outcome!

[rstrong]

Wonder what the outcome would have been had he NOT been armed?

If you want to play that game, it works even better the other way.

In the case of the Japanese kid, wonder what the outcome would have been had the homeowner NOT been armed? Wonder what the outcome would have been had Zimmerman NOT been armed? Wonder what the outcome would have been in recent shootings if the shooter had only a handgun and had to stop to reload it, rather than having high capacity magazines and/or assault rifles?

[Roland Deschain]

Wonder what the outcome would have been had he NOT been armed?

If you want to play that game, it works even better the other way.

In the case of the Japanese kid, wonder what the outcome would have been had the homeowner NOT been armed?

Not familiar with that case so I have no opinion.

Wonder what the outcome would have been had Zimmerman NOT been armed?

Zimmerman would have been severely beaten or possibly killed. Facts of the case prove that.

Wonder what the outcome would have been in recent shootings if the shooter had only a handgun and had to stop to reload it, rather than having high capacity magazines and/or assault rifles?

No difference. Facts prove that the difference in firing time between 3 ten round magazines or 1 thirty round is minimal at best.

Next.....

[rstrong]

In the case of the Japanese kid, wonder what the outcome would have been had the homeowner NOT been armed?

Not familiar with that case so I have no opinion.

It was on the previous page. A Japanese exchange student - in a tuxedo - who knocked on the wrong door, was walking away when the homeowner stepped outside and shot and killed him. (The homeowner, having "felt threatened", was found not guilty.)

Wonder what the outcome would have been had Zimmerman NOT been armed?

Zimmerman would have been severely beaten or possibly killed. Facts of the case prove that.

No, they don't. Not even remotely.

The facts showed that according to current Florida Law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following him, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, provoke a confrontation with him, and if at any point during that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say, "Well, look, you did what you could."

You claim that "Zimmerman would have been severely beaten or possibly killed." If you want to get into that kind of speculation, it's far more credible to claim that without a gun, a chickenshit like Zimmerman would never have provoked the confrontation with the kid to begin with.

Wonder what the outcome would have been in recent shootings if the shooter had only a handgun and had to stop to reload it, rather than having high capacity magazines and/or assault rifles?

No difference. Facts prove that the difference in firing time between 3 ten round magazines or 1 thirty round is minimal at best.

You ignore that fact that those few seconds would provide an opportunity for many in a crowd to escape, and possibly overcome the shooter. You ignore the fact that assault rifles do far more damage than the average handgun, even killing through hydrostatic shock alone.

Are you going to argue that there's actually no reason at all why soldiers are given assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

Next.....

[Boatrocker]

Lie, That's for an expert shooter. Most mass killers aren't expert.

And it depends on how you define "minimal." Maybe he could reference Mad American's faked-up youtube videos showing The Flash swapping magazines faster than the human eye can detect.

[O Really]

A similar incident with a pizza delivery guy shooting a robber happened in Brevard County, FL, back in the summer. But in that case, the pizza guy was former law enforcement who undoubtedly had significant training. That's the part that some of Roland's gang forgets. Most places, no training is required to own a gun, unless you apply for a concealed carry permit.

[Boatrocker]

. . . in that case, the pizza guy was former law enforcement who undoubtedly had significant training.

You can't depend on that training automatically translating into skill, never mind the requisite demeanor and judgement we should be able to expect of cops. but your point is taken.

[O Really]

. . . in that case, the pizza guy was former law enforcement who undoubtedly had significant training.

You can't depend on that training automatically translating into skill, never mind the requisite demeanor and judgement we should be able to expect of cops. but your point is taken.

No, you can't. But on the other hand, "no training" results in bad endings more often than not.

[Roland Deschain]

In the case of the Japanese kid, wonder what the outcome would have been had the homeowner NOT been armed?

Not familiar with that case so I have no opinion.

It was on the previous page. A Japanese exchange student - in a tuxedo - who knocked on the wrong door, was walking away when the homeowner stepped outside and shot and killed him. (The homeowner, having "felt threatened", was found not guilty.)

Wiki???? Really???? Please try to find a credible source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 95112.html

Wonder what the outcome would have been had Zimmerman NOT been armed?

Zimmerman would have been severely beaten or possibly killed. Facts of the case prove that.

No, they don't. Not even remotely.

The facts showed that according to current Florida Law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following him, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, provoke a confrontation with him, and if at any point during that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death, and the state of Florida will say, "Well, look, you did what you could."

You claim that "Zimmerman would have been severely beaten or possibly killed." If you want to get into that kind of speculation, it's far more credible to claim that without a gun, a chickenshit like Zimmerman would never have provoked the confrontation with the kid to begin with.

Unfortunately for you, the court looked at the FACT that Zim was beaten and ruled self defense. Again, the FACTS refute your biased claim.

Wonder what the outcome would have been in recent shootings if the shooter had only a handgun and had to stop to reload it, rather than having high capacity magazines and/or assault rifles?

No difference. Facts prove that the difference in firing time between 3 ten round magazines or 1 thirty round is minimal at best.

You ignore that fact that those few seconds would provide an opportunity for many in a crowd to escape, and possibly overcome the shooter. You ignore the fact that assault rifles do far more damage than the average handgun, even killing through hydrostatic shock alone.

Time, distance, and ability refute your claim. Escape? Possibly but not likely. Over come the shooter? Not gonna happen unless you are Superman or maybe the flash. Might want to check on the energy delivery of the 45 acp HANDGUN round before you start talking about hydrostatic shock. However, if you wnat to debate ballistics...welcome to my wheel house

Are you going to argue that there's actually no reason at all why soldiers are given assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

One would think that even you would be smart enough to realize that when you operate out of a rucksack and pockets you need to maximize the efficiency of available space. Any moron should understand that a single 30 round mag is easier to carry than three 10 round mags. Change speed is irrelevant.

Next.....

Next.....

[Cannonpointer]

It's always, "Oh, if there were more guns in that theater, then even more innocent people might have died in the crossfire."

But folks never ask themselves, would that little coward have TRIED IT, knowing there were more guns in that theater? Me, I stay in safe zones and carry a rape whistle, so I'm pretty much bullet proof. But you people who wander around outside of safe zones without a rape whistle: you might be safer with MORE guns rather than less...

[rstrong]

Wiki???? Really???? Please try to find a credible source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 95112.html

Really???? An article on how Wikipedia noticed sockpuppets and got rid of them means they *don't* have credibility?

A Wikipedia article is as good as its citations. This one's citations are impeccable.

Try to argue the facts, rather than making a pathetically lame attack on the source and running away.

Unfortunately for you, the court looked at the FACT that Zim was beaten and ruled self defense. Again, the FACTS refute your biased claim.

Unfortunately for you, the court looked at the FACT that Zimmerman followed a minor going about his business and doing nothing wrong, provoked a confrontation with him, and then shot the minor to death when his confrontation went badly for him.

Time, distance, and ability refute your claim. Escape? Possibly but not likely. Over come the shooter? Not gonna happen unless you are Superman or maybe the flash.

You can't exit the room while the shooter is reloading? A crowd can't overcome a shooter while he's reloading? Be serious.

Might want to check on the energy delivery of the 45 acp HANDGUN round before you start talking about hydrostatic shock.

That's my point.

The Sandy Hook shooter used a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semi-automatic version of a military assault rifle.

The Columbine shooters had a semi-automatic TEC-9 handgun and a Hi-Point Carbine assault rifle, both of which used 9×19mm Parabellum rounds. "... the energy of the 9mm cartridge is capable of imparting remote wounding effects known as hydrostatic shock, in human-sized living targets."

9×19mm Parabellum rounds were also used in the Virginia Tech massacre.

No-one wants to take away your .45. But letting random nutjobs have military weapons should be stopped.

Change speed is irrelevant.

It's obviously relevant.

[Cannonpointer]

Rstrong said:

"Unfortunately for you, the court looked at the FACT that Zimmerman followed a minor going about his business and doing nothing wrong, provoked a confrontation with him, and then shot the minor to death when his confrontation went badly for him."

That's not even truthy.

1. Your claim that the toddler was "going about his business and doing nothing wrong," is an argument from facts not in evidence. The fetus, who was in possession of precursors to the drug Lean, was skulking about in yards, off the paved walkway, and would have elicited interest from police had there been any present. Moreover, your claim that he was "doing nothing wrong" puts you in the untenable position of proving the negative. Is that intentional, so that you can claim victim status when called upon to back up the assertion?

2. Your claim that the pure-blooded Aryan Zimmerman "provoked the confrontation" is refuted by the state's OWN witness, who testified that her zygote boyfriend had made it to safety from the skulking lilly-white monster, Zimmerman, and of his own volition doubled back to ambush the neighborhood watch volunteer, whose ONLY crime was keeping an eye on the kid. And that kid? He was an enthusiastic and able sport fighter - an MMA hobbyist in excellent athletic condition and well practiced in hand to hand combat (or, "laying the smackdown," in the innocent child's parlance).

3. The pure-blooded Caucasian was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. The rest of this is just speckelation, revisionism and victim posturing.

The neighborhood watch in MY community are always greeted with a hot cup of joe and a hearty attitude of gratitude at the Pointer house. I don't know when we became a society wherein an adult male could not keep an eye on teenager acting suspiciously, without risking both a beatdown from a thug AND social condemnation. It's not the Murka that I was raised in. I was a tough kid, but it would never have OCCURED to me to beat up any of the adults who occasionally gave me the eye

Zoologists will tell you that just about ANY mammal society will go straight to hell if you remove the adult males from the group. Crimes of violence and mayhem will skyrocket. My friends on the left are attacking adult male authority, reflexively. A word to the wise. fellas: The patriarchy is dead. Stop beating a dead horse. And stop with the racism of pretending that thuggery is a valid response to annoyance, so long as it's a black kid doing it.

[O Really]

But folks never ask themselves, would that little coward have TRIED IT, knowing there were more guns in that theater? ...

Possibly not, if he were rational and didn't have a death wish of his own.
But then, we're talking about somebody who thinks its a good idea to go into a theatre and start shooting people at random. I seriously doubt it would make any difference if he knew everybody in the place was armed. Going in as he did, he'd figure he could still knock off a bunch before they got him.

[O Really]

So - is that cannon you point a little loose around the edges? One doesn't have to bring race into the discussion at all to find fault with Zimmerman's story. For many years, you couldn't start a fight and then subsequently claim self-defense. That has now changed. How do we know Zimmerman started started the fight? Because he was the one who followed the guy who got killed. He was the one who expressed suspicion to the cops. He was the one who got out of his car to engage Martin in some encounter, which Zimmerman never claimed to have been a friendly "it's raining, kid - want a ride home?" Given that only one lived to tell the story, it is equally believable that Martin had reason to fear and thus to defend himself. Had Zimmerman simply stayed in his car, everybody would have gotten home safely that night.

[Roland Deschain]

Unfortunately for you, the court looked at the FACT that Zim was beaten and ruled self defense. Again, the FACTS refute your biased claim.

Unfortunately for you, the court looked at the FACT that Zimmerman followed a minor going about his business and doing nothing wrong, provoked a confrontation with him, and then shot the minor to death when his confrontation went badly for him.

Wrong again. Is Zim injail, was he found guilty, just what was the result of that trial? The FACT Zim is a free man refutes your biased claim

Time, distance, and ability refute your claim. Escape? Possibly but not likely. Over come the shooter? Not gonna happen unless you are Superman or maybe the flash.

You can't exit the room while the shooter is reloading? A crowd can't overcome a shooter while he's reloading? Be serious.

Sure they can. Now, just explain how that can be done in less than 2 seconds (that's generous) and you MIGHT have a viable point. However, and as stated before times, distance, and ability refute your claim.

Might want to check on the energy delivery of the 45 acp HANDGUN round before you start talking about hydrostatic shock.

That's my point.

The Sandy Hook shooter used a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a semi-automatic version of a military assault rifle.

The Columbine shooters had a semi-automatic TEC-9 handgun and a Hi-Point Carbine assault rifle, both of which used 9×19mm Parabellum rounds. "... the energy of the 9mm cartridge is capable of imparting remote wounding effects known as hydrostatic shock, in human-sized living targets."

9×19mm Parabellum rounds were also used in the Virginia Tech massacre.

No-one wants to take away your .45. But letting random nutjobs have military weapons should be stopped.

You are contradicting yourself.

You ignore the fact that assault rifles do far more damage than the average handgun, even killing through hydrostatic shock alone.

Do you want to talk about rifle chamberings or carbines chambered for handgun rounds? Better yet define a "military weapon"

Change speed is irrelevant.

It's obviously relevant.

'Fraid not in this case. When a mag change can take place in less time than most professional athletes can run 60 feet it is irrelevant. In that an average person has insufficient time charge or escape

Next....

[Cannonpointer]

O Really said:

"So - is that cannon you point a little loose around the edges? One doesn't have to bring race into the discussion at all to find fault with Zimmerman's story. For many years, you couldn't start a fight and then subsequently claim self-defense. That has now changed. How do we know Zimmerman started started the fight? Because he was the one who followed the guy who got killed. He was the one who expressed suspicion to the cops. He was the one who got out of his car to engage Martin in some encounter, which Zimmerman never claimed to have been a friendly "it's raining, kid - want a ride home?" Given that only one lived to tell the story, it is equally believable that Martin had reason to fear and thus to defend himself. Had Zimmerman simply stayed in his car, everybody would have gotten home safely that night."

My cannon is tight, sir, and I am not the one who brought race into the discussion, sir. That was the race pimps, not me.

You claim that the adult male "started the fight" by following the kid. Did his actions violate any statute - or was he making volitional and peaceable use of his constitutional freedoms?

You claim he "expressed suspicion to the cops." Seems to me the ambush to which Treyvon's girlfriend/pet swine testified rather confirmed those suspicions. In any case, that's no reason to be pummeled or to lose the right of self defense which the jury affirmed was needful.

You criticize the Aryan for not offering the kid a ride home. But if he had, and the kid took it as threatening or a sexual come-on, you'd be defending the ambush on THOSE grounds.

You say, "Had Zimmerman simply stayed in his car, everybody would have gotten home safely that night." What legal authority compelled the lilly white man to remain in his vehicle? If the small child had not snuck into a position of ambush (Jury's conclusion - live with it) and waylaid the neighborhood watch volunteer, he would be alive to continue his rather well established criminal career.

[Cannonpointer]

Vrede, ONE of us is exhibiting racism, but I do not think it is me. I do not dismiss thuggery just because it's perpetrated by a member of a victim group.

I stood to the left my entire life and consider that I continue to do so. But my idea of leftist politics comes from sources like Papa Hemmingway, Steinbeck and Victor Hugo - a manly and commonsense leftism. You, OTOH, seem to draw from sources like Sharpton and Steinem - a more effeminate and less honest brand of leftism, a victim based leftism that requires a never ending war against a long defeated patriarchy. My advice? Just cut it off and get it over with, son.

[O Really]

(Jury's conclusion - live with it) .

Oh, I can live with it. I can live with the original acquittal of OJ, and that Casey Anthony is walking loose, along with the gentlemen who stomped ol' Rodney, as well as others. Living with it doesn't mean one has to agree, or that there can't be factors other than innocence that result in an acquittal. Do you believe that just because a jury's decision is final (not counting appeals) that they're always right?