Tweet
Wishful, pacifist thinking is for liberals ... and the dead ... or the extremely lucky:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11b_1210344827
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11b_1210344827
-
There is nothing to see here. -
First mistake, leaving the house without his weapon. Second mistake, not shooting the robber when he had the chance.Originally posted by JoePublic View Postsigpic -
Exactly.
Nobody wants to take another person's life needlessly, but breaking into my house leaves ME no other option.
Once again, it is the 50-cent crowd of hoodlums ...
IMO it's time for the federal gov to step in, ban the promotion and marketing of this schtuff, and then make it open-season on all hoods until they are all gone ... or it becomes unpopular. Either way, "gangster" anything has to go, it is not beneficial for society at all.
There is nothing to see here.Comment
-
Could have done without the upper thigh shot!...Did you call the Boys in Blue or the Man in Tan?Comment
-
He got shot with his own gun. If he didn't own a gun, he wouldn't have gotten shot. He is lucky he didn't die. I already know that everyone on this forum is going to jump on me for saying this, but this man's case is a perfect example of why I believe we should have more restrictions on gun ownership in our country, not less.Comment
-
-
This was mainly a mind set issue....the guy had not made the decision BEFORE he had to use the weapon that he could actually point it at another human being, and turn them into a pile of rapidly cooling meat......
The time to decide whether you can use deadly force or not is NOT when you are staring over your sights at the suspect....The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone
"Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"
"We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"Comment
-
Yet another example of a person who unfortunately will require surgery to remove their head from their butt.Wishful, pacifist thinking is for liberals ... and the dead ... or the extremely lucky
About the resident...that's too bad. He's lucky to be alive.
This liberal, like MANY OTHERS, sleeps with a firearm in his home and a wariness of his fellow man.
Wishful, pacifist thinking is for wishful pacifists. That makes more sense.-I don't feel you honor someone by creating a physical gesture (the salute). You honor them by holding them in memory and, in law enforcement, proceeding in vigilant, ethical police work. You honor this country or deceased soldiers or whatever you're honoring when you salute a flag by thinking, feeling, and continuing a life of freedom.
--ArkansasRed24Comment
-
Your post pretty much summed up my thoughts exactly. Average Joe Homeowner shouldn't be allowed to own firearms if he is not properly trained. Otherwise you end up with people, like the poor guy in this video, who have firearms but don't know what to do with them, and end up getting hurt with their own guns.Originally posted by KY Blue 72Comment
-
ok, what about the police? do you feel that police should face greater restrictions on being allowed to carry guns? do you feel the training we undergo is not sufficient enough for us to be trusted with a firearm?Originally posted by ChiCity View Post
i ask because alot of police officers have been shot with their own weapon.
you're argument lacks merit, sorry. truth is - weapon retention is an issue for anyone using a weapon. bad things happen, sometimes.
how have the strict gun laws of your city worked out? safe place?Comment
-
Yep, the only thing I have a problem with here is the home owners mindset. He thought about it to long, don't think....react.Originally posted by LA DEP View PostComment
-
Do you honestly think that MORE restriction is the answer? Do you honestly think that the people who DONT jump through the hoops, take the training, search the laws surrounding firearm ownership, Open Carry, Concealed carry, etc, etc, IE Criminals, give a damn how many gun restrictions there are? NO! The only people that a restriction or a ban effects are the law abiding citizens, NOT the criminals.Originally posted by ChiCity View Post
So, unless you have something else to go on besides the accidental shooting of a homeowner to prove that we need more gun control, then please never post here again.The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.
"I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
George CarlinComment
-
Well I guess that means we police officers need restrictions on handguns as well, since many of us are killed with our own weapons.Originally posted by ChiCity View PostComment
-
+100,000 LA DEP!Originally posted by LA DEP View Post
If you own a gun for self defense, and are not willing to take another life to do so, then sell that gun, move closer to a police department, and leave it to the pros.The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.
"I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
George CarlinComment
-
In response to injunwill and bamacop's points on weapon retention and police being killed with their own weapons, I think that is a completely different animal considering the fact that most officers are required to spend the majority of their day carrying their weapon both on and off duty, and that most of those officers have to work with criminals on a daily basis, whereas the average citizen will never be victim to a burglary while they are at home.
In response to Tucker6900, I can tell from your avatar that anything I say is about guns is going to be disagreed with, but I am going to explain my reasoning. Just like people receive training on how to drive a car before they get a license, I feel that they should receive training before they receive their license to own a gun. Here in Illinois, there are no hoops; as long as you can fill out a one page application (which basically is just the information on your driver's license), have $10, and aren't a felon, you can get your FOID, and subsequently buy a gun. There is a three day waiting period for handguns, 1 day waiting period for rifles and shotguns. And of course, if you live in the city of Chicago, you cannot own a handgun and will have to register your shotgun/rifle. I don't see what is so difficult about that, but that's not really my point.
The crux of my argument is this: Law-abiding citizens who want to own guns are still going to jump through those hoops. As you validly point out, criminals who have no regard for the law will still obtain their guns without jumping through those hoops. So if we add another hoop, that being that the law-abiding citizens have to receive firearms training before they can obtain a gun, how does that hurt anything? Now we have law-abiding citizens with guns who know what to do with them, and criminals who don't. It seems to me that would be a deterrent to crime, but what do I know, I just a wishful lib.
Anyway, I will defer to your wishes and I will never post on this subject again.Comment
There are currently 5765 users online. 315 members and 5450 guests.
Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.
Comment