Dept. Of Righteous Shootings
Greg Pierce
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P2399
10:52am: Dept. Of Righteous Shootings image
Goblin breaks into house, is confronted by homeowner, who calls police
to come and collect said goblin.
Police arrive, but goblin doesn't want to give up easily, starts fighting
with the police... whereupon he is shot dead -- by the homeowner.
Outstanding stuff, this: and seeing as it happened in Texas, Our Hero
will not be charged, of course. He should, in fact, get some award for
saving a police officer's life). Kudos to the homeowner for not just
sitting back and letting the cops handle it.
Lesson to be learned: Private citizens are not constrained in dealing
with goblins as much as the cops are. The cops have all that "Rodney King"
stuff they have to deal with.
Far better for homeowners to waste goblins themselves, and let the police
do their proper job, such as disposing of the remains, informing next of
kin, offering congratulations to the homeowner, etc. Sometimes, of course,
the cops don't like this approach -- "leave it to us", is the normal
mantra -- but I'll bet the two Texas cops in this little tale don't share
it right now.
Dead goblin count: 56
Here is the URL for the news story:
http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=310&xlc=1089743&xld=310
Amps
"Greg Pierce" <tras...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.25....@nospam.com...
I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, a lifetime NRA member, and an
avid believer that we are all responsible for our personal and our families
protection, but I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea. Did the bad guy
have a weapon? Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life? Was it a
clear shot or a lucky one? The story doesn't really give much detail.
Rich Koerner
And, there's that BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
> around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea.
Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What counts is target control was effective.
> Did the bad guy
> have a weapon?
Again, who care!!!!
What ever it takes to STOP the actions of an uninvited intruder, is what
it takes!!!!!!!!
> Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life?
What,.. surprise uninvited intruders walking in one you, IN YOUR OWN
*HOME*, should NOT be a threatening experience!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, why would you care in the first place.
> Was it a
> clear shot or a lucky one?
Why would that be a matter of importance for YOU to know!!!!!
> The story doesn't really give much detail.
OK, what's missing, you'd like to know!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Amps
> > I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, a lifetime NRA member, and
an
> > avid believer that we are all responsible for our personal and our
families
> > protection, but
>
>
> And, there's that BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not sure what you mean by that, but...:)
>
> > I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
> > around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea.
>
> Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> What counts is target control was effective.
Yeah, OK Dirty Harry. You wanna know who cares? The Lawyer that the family
of the deceased will hire to sue the shooter for wrongful death. Also,
please define what the hell "Target Control" is.
>
>
> > Did the bad guy
> > have a weapon?
>
> Again, who care!!!!
The Lawyer that will sue the shooter, The District Attorneys Office that may
file criminal charges, the deputies that were possibly in the line of fire,
the nextdoor neighbors who might have caught a round had the shooter missed,
etc...
>
> What ever it takes to STOP the actions of an uninvited intruder, is what
> it takes!!!!!!!!
>
Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking at
this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't shoot
someone just because they walked into your house.
> Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life?
>
> What,.. surprise uninvited intruders walking in one you, IN YOUR OWN
> *HOME*, should NOT be a threatening experience!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, the people in the house were not being threatened. The intruder was
not brandishing a weapon. The intruder did not try to harm anyone. For all
anyone knows he could have been a person of diminished mental capacity that
was confused and in need of assistance.
>
> BTW, why would you care in the first place.
>
I care because i'm tired of being penalized and ostricisized for being a gun
owner. People with your attitude are what give gun owners a bad rep., and
give the liberal gun grabbing politicians all the fuel they need to enact
new and useless gunlaws.
> > Was it a
> > clear shot or a lucky one?
>
> Why would that be a matter of importance for YOU to know!!!!!
Just curious really
> > The story doesn't really give much detail.
>
> OK, what's missing, you'd like to know!!!!!!!!
Nothing. I can find out all the details if I really want.
Greg Pierce
us with these pearls of wisdom:
We will have to wait for the "official" version. It would seem the Bad Guy
may have been grabbing for, or actually got hold of, one of the deputies
weapons, but that is still unclear. Since it appears that the homeowner
will not be charged, it was probably a clean shoot (clean=justified). We
will see.....
--
Greg
--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.
j...@3inthekey.com
He's a lunatic - just look at the exclamation points. This is the
same guy who said the US's soldiers knowingly signed up for a war on
Evil that has something to do with defeating terrorists AND American
street gangs.
Lord Valve
Greg Pierce wrote:
I think they should amend Colorado's "Make My Day" law to
allow the homeowner to bill the perp's next of kin for cleaning
up the mess. ;-)
Lord Valve
Armed
(...but not at all dangerous, as long as you stay on the
street where you belong.)
Lord Valve
Amps wrote:
> > > I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, a lifetime NRA member, and
> an
> > > avid believer that we are all responsible for our personal and our
> families
> > > protection, but
> >
> >
> > And, there's that BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Not sure what you mean by that, but...:)
>
> >
> > > I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
> > > around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea.
> >
> > Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > What counts is target control was effective.
>
> Yeah, OK Dirty Harry. You wanna know who cares? The Lawyer that the family
> of the deceased will hire to sue the shooter for wrongful death.
Yoou know the *local* law involved? Bet you don't.
> Also,
> please define what the hell "Target Control" is.
>
> >
> >
> > > Did the bad guy
> > > have a weapon?
> >
> > Again, who care!!!!
>
> The Lawyer that will sue the shooter, The District Attorneys Office that may
> file criminal charges, the deputies that were possibly in the line of fire,
> the nextdoor neighbors who might have caught a round had the shooter missed,
> etc...
Again, you have no knowledge of the local ordinances.
>
>
> >
> > What ever it takes to STOP the actions of an uninvited intruder, is what
> > it takes!!!!!!!!
> >
> Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking at
> this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
> IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't shoot
> someone just because they walked into your house.
In my case, you are *absolutely* wrong.
>
>
> > Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life?
> >
> > What,.. surprise uninvited intruders walking in one you, IN YOUR OWN
> > *HOME*, should NOT be a threatening experience!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Again, the people in the house were not being threatened. The intruder was
> not brandishing a weapon. The intruder did not try to harm anyone. For all
> anyone knows he could have been a person of diminished mental capacity that
> was confused and in need of assistance.
> >
> > BTW, why would you care in the first place.
> >
>
> I care because i'm tired of being penalized and ostricisized for being a gun
> owner. People with your attitude are what give gun owners a bad rep., and
> give the liberal gun grabbing politicians all the fuel they need to enact
> new and useless gunlaws.
Bullshit.
>
>
> > > Was it a
> > > clear shot or a lucky one?
> >
> > Why would that be a matter of importance for YOU to know!!!!!
>
> Just curious really
>
> > > The story doesn't really give much detail.
> >
> > OK, what's missing, you'd like to know!!!!!!!!
>
> Nothing. I can find out all the details if I really want.
Go right ahead. While you're at it, check on Colorado's"Make My Day" law.
LV
Rich Koerner
Amps wrote:
>
> > > I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, a lifetime NRA member, and
> an
> > > avid believer that we are all responsible for our personal and our
> families
> > > protection, but
> >
> >
> > And, there's that BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Not sure what you mean by that, but...:)
That means, everything preceeding the *but*, IS to be taken as
meaningless.
> >
> > > I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
> > > around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea.
> >
> > Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > What counts is target control was effective.
>
> Yeah, OK Dirty Harry. You wanna know who cares? The Lawyer that the family
> of the deceased will hire to sue the shooter for wrongful death.
Any different if one of the cops shot him!!!!!
What would be the difference who fingered the trigger to stop the
mayhem.
> Also,
> please define what the hell "Target Control" is.
The ability to point and click with accuracy!!!!!
> > > Did the bad guy
> > > have a weapon?
> >
> > Again, who cares!!!!
>
> The Lawyer that will sue the shooter, The District Attorneys Office that may
> file criminal charges,
Who didn't file any charges!!!!
The shooter saved the lives of the cops, and the other by-standers, had
the purp gotten one of the cops guns, and shot up the town.
> the deputies that were possibly in the line of fire,
If they were in the line of fire at the time, we'd know of by the
article's focus on the officer shot by the Doc!!!!
Which, was not the case.
Accuracy with firearms and reporting is a nice thing.
> the nextdoor neighbors who might have caught a round had the shooter missed,
> etc...
Which was not the case. Was it.
BTW, what makes you think every citizen with a hand gun is some sort of
dumb ass hazard to the general public at large.
There are many armed citizens who have put in the time investment to
become more competent than some in law enforcement I've met. Having a
badge and a gun is no validation the individual is any more, or less
competent than an armed citizen who takes firearm responsibility very
seriously.
BTW, I KNEW, by YOUR *but*, at the get go, that we were going down this
road at some point.
Let's go back there for a second look.
> I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, a lifetime NRA member,
So, you sent in your check and got your membership.
> and an
> avid believer that we are all responsible for our personal and our families
> protection,
That's so nice to know, you ain't a gun grabber!!!!!
How many barrels have to worn out during your years of range time. I'm
on my third barrel now.
Shoot any matches lately.
Like one handed bull's eye matches,
http://www.mts.net/~wrpa/bullseye-shooting.html
Or, IPSC, http://www.ipsc.org/
> but I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
> around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea. Did the bad guy
> have a weapon? Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life? Was it a
> clear shot or a lucky one? The story doesn't really give much detail.
From the article, it seems the cops were getting their ass kicked by the
purp!!!!!
What, you would want video footage, like watching COP'S on TV, to be
available!!!!!!!
> > What ever it takes to STOP the actions of an uninvited intruder, is what
> > it takes!!!!!!!!
> >
> Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking at
> this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
> IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't shoot
> someone just because they walked into your house.
There are some places in this country where doing such a thing, can get
you KILLED!!!!!
Out here, we have house jackings. Like the criminals kick in the door,
and RUSHES those inside with guns and/or knives in their hands. They
came to fuck you up, so they can take your stuff. That's their deal.
What, you want me to have a DON'T HURT ME conversation with them, as the
blade cuts my son, or the round is squeezed off at my wife!!!!!!!!
BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life?
> >
> > What,.. surprise uninvited intruders walking in one you, IN YOUR OWN
> > *HOME*, should NOT be a threatening experience!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Again, the people in the house were not being threatened. The intruder was
> not brandishing a weapon. The intruder did not try to harm anyone. For all
> anyone knows he could have been a person of diminished mental capacity that
> was confused and in need of assistance.
Yes, and the cops were called, and as it turned out, THEY were in NEED
of assistance, as gathered from reading the article.
> > BTW, why would you care in the first place.
> >
>
> I care because i'm tired of being penalized and ostricisized for being a gun
> owner.
Sound like the gun graber liberals got you to tuck your tail between
your legs.
> People with your attitude are what give gun owners a bad rep.
You called my Dirty Harry!!!!!!
What's negative about that!!!!!
I should be thankful for a no nonsence cop like Dirty Harry on the
streets cleaning up the crime and gangs around here.
> , and
> give the liberal gun grabbing politicians all the fuel they need to enact
> new and useless gunlaws.
My words here are not likely to be used here by any politician for any
new gun law.
They don't need me, or anyone else. They're PROGRAMED to grab guns, to
GET VOTES!!!!
Let's get REAL about THAT, right now!!!!!!
> > > Was it a
> > > clear shot or a lucky one?
You speak like someone who doesn't point and click very much.
If you did, you'd know about the luck factor.
What are the odds of shooting one arrow on top of another arrow, like
Robinhood DID in the story books.
What, would you say the odds are of doing that more than twice, and how
much LUCK is involved.
Here's my answer to that, http://timeelect.com/Archery.htm
Now, what are the odds of firing a bullet through the same hole twice in
a target is!!!!!!
At ten yeards, I've done it. In front of the range captain at the
range, while I was sighting in my colt 45 handgun.
Now, you KNOW, what I mean by Target Control!!!!!!!!!!
> > Why would that be a matter of importance for YOU to know!!!!!
>
> Just curious really
>
> > > The story doesn't really give much detail.
Like most articles of this type, it is always assumed that anyone
without a badge and uniform holding that firearm, is an incompetent boob
with a firearm. There is always some question of that element, as
presented for public consumption by the media elites. And,... THAT,
is NOT always the case!!!!!
BTW, did you know that in the USA CA Olympics, the first Gold Metal
winner for the USA was never featured in the Gold Metal race by the TV
coverage, because SHE, won it in the Free Pistol Competition.
The anti-gun media could not deal with it, and put it up there on the
screen for the world to see!!!!!!!!!!
If that women had been in a track event, we would all know here name
today!!!!!!!
THINK, about THAT, for a second or two.
What did that women have to go through to make the women's Olympic
Pistol Team.
Without a badge or uniform, in who's eyes, is she some incompetent boob
with a handgun.
Really, think about this.
Also, just who wants YOU, to THINK this way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then, more importantly, WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rich Koerner
"j...@3inthekey.com" wrote:
>
> He's a lunatic - just look at the exclamation points. This is the
> same guy who said the US's soldiers knowingly signed up for a war on
> Evil that has something to do with defeating terrorists AND American
> street gangs.
Like I said to Tink,.... I'll let you digest it too!!!!!!!
> TimePixDC wrote:
>
> Look Tink, let's cut to the quick!!!!
>
> I know people here in New Jersey who lost friends and family in the WTC
> attack.
>
> Having said that,....
>
>
> > >Evil, attacked the WTC!
> >
> > No, it was actually 19 criminals, not "Evil."
>
> OK, now you walk up to these people I've met, and YOU hand them This
> Crock Of Crap you're selling!!!!!!
>
> I think they will hand you a healthy education on *what* Evil IS!!!!!!!
Evil has many faces.
Your survival depends on knowing them.
One day, you may just have to take your hand down from in front of your
face, and look evil in the eye.
DGDevin
> We will have to wait for the "official" version. It would seem the Bad Guy
> may have been grabbing for, or actually got hold of, one of the deputies
> weapons, but that is still unclear. Since it appears that the homeowner
> will not be charged, it was probably a clean shoot (clean=justified). We
> will see.....
In that case it seems like a justified shooting, so far as we can tell from
this distance with so little information to go on. But I'm disturbed by the
casual attitude of some contributors to this thread -- "Who cares?" -- in
response to reasonable questions about what happened, as if killing someone,
even a scumbag criminal, is a casual act that anyone can handle before lunch
with plenty of time to mow the lawn afterwards, hardly more trouble than
giving the dog a bath. Pulling the trigger while aiming at another person
is a Very Big Deal, pretending otherwise is childish and foolish.
Rich Koerner
DGDevin wrote:
>
> "Greg Pierce" <tras...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.11.26....@nospam.com...
>
> > We will have to wait for the "official" version. It would seem the Bad Guy
> > may have been grabbing for, or actually got hold of, one of the deputies
> > weapons, but that is still unclear. Since it appears that the homeowner
> > will not be charged, it was probably a clean shoot (clean=justified). We
> > will see.....
>
> In that case it seems like a justified shooting, so far as we can tell from
> this distance with so little information to go on. But I'm disturbed by the
> casual attitude of some contributors to this thread -- "Who cares?" -- in
> response to reasonable questions about what happened, as if killing someone,
So, just who WOULD care:
The gun grabber looking for some fuel
One who wants sympathy for the poor criminal
One who thinks there is some justified reason for criminal behaviour
One who thinks the value of life is in the mind of the criminal
One who thinks the victim had in some part invited the attack
One who wants to consider the life of the criminal as equal to yours
One who knows how YOU should have acted while YOU were under attack
One who thinks life is like a Hollywood movie, with a script of fair
play for criminals
One who thinks firearm self-defence, is an unfair tactic, to gain unfair
advantage
One who'd have YOU read the law and comply, while YOU are in, an out of
control house jacking
One who is afraid of the idea of an armed citizen having a firearm
One who has embraced all the gun grabbing brain washing
One who believes in equal rights for the criminal without regard for
*your* LIFE
One who'd have you feel GUILTY, for having been successful defending
yourself, and/or family at the criminal's expense
Did I hit which one you are yet.
> even a scumbag criminal, is a casual act that anyone can handle before lunch
> with plenty of time to mow the lawn afterwards, hardly more trouble than
> giving the dog a bath. Pulling the trigger while aiming at another person
> is a Very Big Deal, pretending otherwise is childish and foolish.
In the heat of an attack on your life, let's see what goes through your
mind!!!!!!!!!
There is only one thing that BETTER be on your mind, while YOU are in
the middle of a criminal attack on your life, if you are going to live
to tell about it another day.
Now what do you think THAT would be smart guy!!!!!!!!!!
Then, after the dust settles, and you've had time to think about what
happened to you, are you going to be the same person saying the same
shit you are now.
Anthony Fremont
"Amps" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote
> Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking
at
> this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
> IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't
shoot
> someone just because they walked into your house.
Speak for the laws in your locality/state/country/continent. In Texas
deadly force is authorized as long as the homeowner is "fearing for
their life" or when protecting their (or even someone else's) property.
Hell you don't even have to wait for the criminal to come into your
home, you can shoot him thru the window/door if he is threatening you.
To give you an idea of where the lines are here, I once saw a guy living
in an APARTMENT get away with shooting a wrecker driver that was
repossessing his car. The vehicle owner confronted the wrecker driver
and demanded that he unhook the vehicle. The wrecker driver refused,
got in his wrecker, and proceeded to verbally abuse the reposessee.
Upon starting to drive away, the wrecker driver "flipped the bird" to
the other guy, whereby the guy shot the wrecker driver (thru the back
window of the wrecker) killing him. The police referred the case to a
grand jury WITHOUT CHARGES. The grand jury NO BILLED him. I'm not
saying this was a "well justified" shooting, but that's how the law
works here.
Rich Koerner
Rich Koerner wrote:
<snip>
> Like one handed bull's eye matches,
> http://www.mts.net/~wrpa/bullseye-shooting.html
>
> Or, IPSC, http://www.ipsc.org/
http://www.bullseyepistol.com/
http://www.tucsonrifleclub.org/Photos.html
Check the photos of the people involved in this sport of high power
handgun silhouette shooting http://www.ihmsa.org/
Are these the armed citizens we are to be afraid to have living next to
us!!!!
Take a look, http://ihmsa.org/int26/photo4.html
The media elite's never show you the REAL Mr. & Mrs. America firearms
owner like this. Do they!!!!!!
This is more the reality of what responsible people are like who enjoy
what is an American Culture.
Not quite the beer drinking biker type gun nut the media paints for an
image in your mind is it!!!!!!!!
Wow!!!!!
Imagine that!!!!!!!
There really IS another side to the story of gun ownership in the hands
of the average citizen.
THIS, is what the REAL firearms culture, of America is all about.
It's Not what the Politicians, the News Media elite, or the Hollywood
elite want you to see!!!!
Just like the woman, they didn't want you to see on the TV screen, who
won the first Gold Metal for Free Pistol in the CA Olympics.
For sport, or personal protection, what's the problem with Mr. and Mrs.
America owning firearms!!!!!!
In the face of THIS reality, you tell me!!!!!!
Howard Aubrey
"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3FC462F1...@ix.netcom.com...
issues. I was recently dropped from an almost $1 billion dollar
lawsuit involving a deadly police raid. The PD were found justified
by the State in the shooting, but the city is being sued in civil court.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/25/national/main575007.shtml
As someone involved, I can tell you, it is looking real bad for
the city. I'm actually thinking of moving just because of the inevitable
tax increase, and the fact that the whole thing is completely embarassing
to me as a resident.
cheers....
HJA
experienced
Howard Aubrey
"Rich Koerner" <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote in message
news:3FC49486...@timeelect.com...
>
>
>
>
> Rich Koerner wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Like one handed bull's eye matches,
> > http://www.mts.net/~wrpa/bullseye-shooting.html
> >
> > Or, IPSC, http://www.ipsc.org/
>
> http://www.uspsa.org/
>
> http://www.idpa.com/menu.htm
>
> http://www.sassnet.com/
>
> http://www.bullseyepistol.com/
>
> http://www.tucsonrifleclub.org/Photos.html
>
>
> Check the photos of the people involved in this sport of high power
> handgun silhouette shooting http://www.ihmsa.org/
>
>
I wonder who is guarding the trailer park while all of these
people are away from it?
cheers...
HJA
TRUE American
tomkatf
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/index.htm
where you can buy surplus M-1's, Springfield '03's, '03A3's and other
goodies for reasonable prices from Uncle Sam!
;-P
Best,
Tom
Tubeguru
powder brings people to their senses pretty quickly. It also gives you a
chance to draw a real good bead on the target...
Tubeguru
Amps
"DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:n2_wb.113870$Ec1.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
That "Who cares?" attitude is displayed by people who have never been in the
situation where they had to actually use a firearm against another person.
They read all the gun magazines, and take part in all their little weekend
shooting matches which are a joke. Anyone who thinks IPSC will prepare you
for a real encounter is a moron. Last time I checked the targets weren't
shooting back at you. What these morons fail to realize is that although the
local authorities might not charge the shooter, a violation of civil rights
case will probably be brought against him. The feds don't give a fuck about
the local laws. Think OJ on this one. Innocent on the local level, guilty of
the federal Civil Rights case. No jail time, just certain financial ruin.
Chew on that fact weekend warriors.
j...@3inthekey.com
> "j...@3inthekey.com" wrote:
> >
> > He's a lunatic - just look at the exclamation points. This is the
> > same guy who said the US's soldiers knowingly signed up for a war on
> > Evil that has something to do with defeating terrorists AND American
> > street gangs.
>
>
>
> Like I said to Tink,.... I'll let you digest it too!!!!!!!
>
> > TimePixDC wrote:
> >
> > Look Tink, let's cut to the quick!!!!
> >
> > I know people here in New Jersey who lost friends and family in the WTC
> > attack.
> >
> > Having said that,....
> >
> >
> > > >Evil, attacked the WTC!
> > >
> > > No, it was actually 19 criminals, not "Evil."
> >
> > OK, now you walk up to these people I've met, and YOU hand them This
> > Crock Of Crap you're selling!!!!!!
> >
> > I think they will hand you a healthy education on *what* Evil IS!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> Evil has many faces.
>
> Your survival depends on knowing them.
>
> One day, you may just have to take your hand down from in front of your
> face, and look evil in the eye.
>
Listen, sensei, survival depends on not walking in front of a bus and
eating right. Where do you get this stuff - have you memorized Star
Wars or something?
DGDevin
[the usual overlong Koerner rant snipped]
> Then, after the dust settles, and you've had time to think about what
> happened to you, are you going to be the same person saying the same
> shit you are now.
You still don't get it, maybe you never will. I am the descendant of a
woman who used a firearm to stay alive, home with her two young children,
husband away at work, a gun was the only thing between her and a violent
fellow who showed up one night with hell on his mind. Only one shot was
fired, didn't even hit anybody, but it was enough. I *entirely* support the
right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms and use them in the defense of
themselves and others if need be, that isn't at issue. What is the issue to
me is your flippant dismissal of any interest in the facts of this case --
was the situation actually under control, did the cops have the upper hand,
was the intruder a violent criminal or just some drunk who got the address
wrong, was he a thief trying to run away, a mentally handicapped person, was
the homeowner in danger, were the cops in danger, or was this guy just
pissed off that somebody dared to try to steal his VCR and wanted a little
instant revenge? We don't know, yet you are prepared to blurt "Who cares,"
as if blowing a hole in someone is the equivalent of pulling a few weeds out
of the lawn. To repeat, using a firearm against another person is not a
casual act, to do so in a situation in which there is no immediate threat to
the shooter's life is not self-defense. If this guy shot a burglar who had
just grabbed a cop's gun, that's a different matter, but until we *know*
that, the possibility remains that this homeowner might have been
trigger-happy and as big a danger to the cops as to anyone else when he
fired. So "righteous shooting" it might be, or might not be, unless you
have a copy of the police report to post, you don't know anymore than I do,
and to judge the situation at a great distance with only a news story to go
on strikes me as very foolish.
DGDevin
>
> That "Who cares?" attitude is displayed by people who have never been in
the
> situation where they had to actually use a firearm against another person.
> They read all the gun magazines, and take part in all their little weekend
> shooting matches which are a joke. Anyone who thinks IPSC will prepare you
> for a real encounter is a moron. Last time I checked the targets weren't
> shooting back at you.
Defensive firearms training is *some* preparation for real-life shooting
situations, but you are correct in pointing out that it rarely simulates the
adrenaline-pumping stress of the real thing. I saw a piece of video with a
store owner and a robber shooting at each other from maybe six feet away on
either side of a store counter, there must have been at least a dozen shots
fired, no hits, I think finally the shop owner managed to tag the crook in
the leg or something, it was an amazing thing to see.
> What these morons fail to realize is that although the
> local authorities might not charge the shooter, a violation of civil
rights
> case will probably be brought against him. The feds don't give a fuck
about
> the local laws. Think OJ on this one. Innocent on the local level, guilty
of
> the federal Civil Rights case. No jail time, just certain financial ruin.
> Chew on that fact weekend warriors.
Ya, that's the reality of it, anybody who thinks shooting someone is a petty
matter is in dreamland, it ain't something you're going to walk away from
whistling a happy tune, and anyone who claims otherwise certainly has never
been through the experience.
Mike F.
j...@3inthekey.com (j...@3inthekey.com) wrote:
Geesus, you're a bitter little shit. Fuck off, ankle biter.
Rich Koerner
DGDevin wrote:
>
> "Rich Koerner" <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote in message
> news:3FC47B66...@timeelect.com...
>
> [the usual overlong Koerner rant snipped]
You can have ALL the questions you want!!!!
But, let's just get to the bottom line here!!!!
> and to judge the situation at a great distance with only a news story to go
> on strikes me as very foolish.
Well now, let's look at this one for a second.
Are you saying the accuracy and detailing of the facts in this event are
worthless due to the slant in the news reporting. Like news reporters,
are less than truthful about their job.
OK, let's go with that. Than the written word media all around you is
WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thus, making the answers to any of your questions from the same source,
equally WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!
But then, when one looks for conspiracy, unanswered questions always
fuel that fire.
Seems, you really want to go in that direction.
As far as my WHO CARES is concerned,....
Let's review a bit.
> Web Posted : 11/25/2003 12:00 AM
>
> A Hays County homeowner shot and killed an intruder who was struggling with two
> sheriff's deputies in his back yard Sunday evening.
>
> Claude Lefuma Labasa, 37, of Raleigh, N.C., was pronounced dead at the scene
> by Hays County Justice of the Peace Beth Smith.
>
> Hays County investigators said they do not know why Labasa was in the Kyle area,
> but said he surprised two couples who were in the Stagecoach Road home at about
> 6:15 p.m. Sunday.
>
> "Apparently he was a complete stranger to the people there," said Sheriff's
> Department Sgt. Allen Bridges. "He simply walked in the back door on them."
>
> They called police, who arrived about 10 minutes later.
>
> "There was no physical altercation with the people in the house," Bridges said. "I
> have no idea what the conversation was like."
>
> Two sheriff's deputies arrived and tried to question the intruder, but Labasa was
> uncooperative, then fought with the deputies when they tried to arrest him.
>
> The fight spilled out into the back yard, Bridges said.
>
> While the deputies were trying to subdue the man, the homeowner, Stanley
> Hughson, fired one shot, hitting the intruder.
>
> Investigators would not say where the bullet struck Labasa. After being shot, he ran
> from the deputies, who caught and subdued him in front of the house.
>
> An ambulance was called to the house, but Labasa was dead by the time it arrived.
> Smith ordered an autopsy by the Travis County medical examiner's office.
>
> Reached by telephone, Hughson declined comment Monday. He gave investigators
> a statement at the department's San Marcos headquarters on Sunday night.
>
> Authorities did not immediately release the names of the deputies, both of whom
> were treated for minor injuries at Central Texas Medical Center and released.
>
> No charges have been filed against Hughson. The results of the investigation will be
> handed over to the Hays County district attorney's office, Bridges said.
>
> Bridges declined to speculate on whether Hughson thought the deputies were in
> danger.
>
> "It was a very violent situation," Bridges said. "The deputies had cuts, scratches and
> bruises. One of them may have had a broken finger."
>
Now, it seems, from the article, that the law enforcement people are
very satisified with the out come of this case in point.
Why not you!!!!!!!
Oops, there are those naging questions again. But that's your problem,
ain't it.
We ALL like happy endings where the bad guy gets his ass kicked over the
goal post!!!!!!
And,... I Don't CARE Who the bad guy is, or Who's Foot sends him/her
over the goal post either!!!!!!!
I'm just glad the *right* people are still here with us, and the bad guy
ain't around to act up again where the out come could be the opposite,
and more lives threatened.
It nice when things turn out as they should, and the good guys win out
over the bad guys!!!!!!!!!
Your questions just look to make the good guys, bad!!!!!!!
Howard Aubrey
"Mike F." <mjf@mindspring-remove-.com> wrote in message
news:mjf-D5D6E7.1...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
ROFLMAO!! This coming from a man(?) who drips with venom.
If there is anyone that reeks of *bitter* it's you, especially
lately. Hows your blood pressure?
Don't forget to take your lipitor. And pleeze
develop a sense of humor for chrissakes!
cheers....
HJA
Steve Eaton
"tomkatf" <tomfar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3FC4D04D...@cox.net...
> The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) website...
>
> http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/index.htm
>
> where you can buy surplus M-1's, Springfield '03's, '03A3's and other
> goodies for reasonable prices from Uncle Sam!
>
> ;-P
>
> Best,
> Tom
Cool, I have a pair of the 03's, One built by Winchester, the other by
Remmington.
.30-06 kicks butt.
Miles O'Neal
>
> "Amps" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote
>
>> Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking
> at
>> this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
>> IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't
> shoot
>> someone just because they walked into your house.
>
> Speak for the laws in your locality/state/country/continent. In Texas
> deadly force is authorized as long as the homeowner is "fearing for their
> life" or when protecting their (or even someone else's) property. Hell you
> don't even have to wait for the criminal to come into your home, you can
> shoot him thru the window/door if he is threatening you.
In Texas, if someone is on your property at night,
and you have any reason to believe they are up to
criminal mischief, you may shoot them. OT1H, this
is bizarre to me. You could shoot some kid TPing
your yard. OTOH, if it *is* someone up to no good,
you don't have to wait until they shoot first. In
the twelve years I've been here, I haven't heard of
a single case of someone not up to criminal mischief
getting shot, so I guess it's working.
Now, I want to hear from the folks who condemn gun
ownership. The courts have ruled over and over, all
over the US of A, that *there is no requirement for
the police to protect you or prevent crimes*. And we
all know there are way too few police. So who ya gonna
call? Hmmm? And what happens until they get there?
I mean, besides you or your kid getting raped and
tortured, maybe killed.
-Miles
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Miles O'Neal
> Listen, sensei, survival depends on not walking in front of a bus and
> eating right. Where do you get this stuff - have you memorized Star Wars
> or something?
Awfully quick with the smart aleck response,
there, Jim.
May we safely conclude that neither you nor
anyone you care about has ever been raped,
pistol-whipped, murdered, stabbed, etc?
-Miles, curious
PMG
wrote:
>The courts have ruled over and over, all
>over the US of A, that *there is no requirement for
>the police to protect you or prevent crimes*.
People never seem to understand that. Protecting you from
unforeseeable circumstances just isn't the police department's job.
Pete
--
Your signature move,
is who you are. --Sr. Hasbeena
DGDevin
>
> OK, let's go with that. Than the written word media all around you is
> WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Speak for yourself, don't set up a straw man and then knock it down in
triumph. It doesn't take a genius to know that the news media does a
sketchy job at best, surely we all recognize that, that alone should tell
you that you don't really know what happened in this case, so isn't it a
little risky to announce that an undoubted bad guy got what he had coming?
> Seems, you really want to go in that direction.
Seems you want to keep insisting on knowing what I think apparently without
listening to anything I'm saying.
> Now, it seems, from the article, that the law enforcement people are
> very satisified with the out come of this case in point.
I have too many friends and family members in the cops to imagine that a
news story tells us what they really think of this case. There was a D.A.
in NY who charged a guy with attempted murder when he shot someone who was
literally beating one of his neighbors to death, the D.A. dropped the
charges when he realized there was no way in hell he would ever find a jury
to convict the guy, the public thought he did the right thing. So, does the
fact that the charges were dropped mean "the law enforcement people" were
"very satisfied" with the case, or that they just recognized they would
never get a conviction?
> Oops, there are those naging questions again. But that's your problem,
> ain't it.
Anyone who believes what he reads in the papers because it happens to agree
with his biases has way bigger problems than I do.
> We ALL like happy endings where the bad guy gets his ass kicked over the
> goal post!!!!!!
Ah, here's where you post your ironclad proof that this character was a
card-carrying "bad guy" and not a drunk or petty thief trying to flee or
whatever. Shall we wait?
> Your questions just look to make the good guys, bad!!!!!!!
Still trying to substitute one of your speeches for what someone else
believes. Again, if this guy was a crook breaking into someone's home, then
so far as I'm concerned he bears the responsibility for what happened to
him. But also again, we don't really know what happened, we don't know if
the cops had the situation in hand or what, we're all just speculating, the
difference being that you're acting as if you have all the facts in front of
you, and you don't. If this guy was some scumbag home invasion robber, good
riddance, until we actually know that, I prefer to reserve judgement, while
you prefer to yell "Who cares." So be it.
DGDevin
news:jA3xb.4262$y5.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
>
> I wonder who is guarding the trailer park while all of these
> people are away from it?
An ignorant and arrogant remark, and yet people like you wonder why all
those unwashed blue-collar types keep voting Republican when enlightened
liberals like you keep telling them to vote the other way, it never crosses
your mind that those folks are more than smart enough to know that your kind
doesn't really have their best interests at heart and that in fact you
despise them.
Rich Koerner
Amps wrote:
>
> >
>
> That "Who cares?" attitude is displayed by people who have never been in the
> situation where they had to actually use a firearm against another person.
> They read all the gun magazines, and take part in all their little weekend
> shooting matches which are a joke. Anyone who thinks IPSC will prepare you
> for a real encounter is a moron.
As you are, speaking from first hand experience, of course.
> Last time I checked the targets weren't
> shooting back at you.
How do the cops sharpen their skills.
They practice their shooting skills on live subjects?
> What these morons fail to realize is that although the
> local authorities might not charge the shooter, a violation of civil rights
> case will probably be brought against him. The feds don't give a fuck about
> the local laws. Think OJ on this one. Innocent on the local level, guilty of
> the federal Civil Rights case. No jail time, just certain financial ruin.
> Chew on that fact weekend warriors.
<Rich chews and spits on the floor in front of you>
Doesn't change a thing!!!!
If it's between YOU, and the criminal in a showdown, what are YOU going
to do.
You going to pull that trigger, or are YOU going stand there like a deer
in the headlights, thinking about those court cases being slapped on
you!!!!!!!
What's it going to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Time's up, your dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See how that works.
Simple, ain't it.
Rich Koerner
DGDevin wrote:
>
> "Rich Koerner" <ri...@timeelect.com> wrote in message
> news:3FC512DC...@timeelect.com...
> >
> > OK, let's go with that. Than the written word media all around you is
> > WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Speak for yourself, don't set up a straw man and then knock it down in
> triumph. It doesn't take a genius to know that the news media does a
> sketchy job at best, surely we all recognize that, that alone should tell
> you that you don't really know what happened in this case, so isn't it a
> little risky to announce that an undoubted bad guy got what he had coming?
>
> > Seems, you really want to go in that direction.
>
> Seems you want to keep insisting on knowing what I think apparently without
> listening to anything I'm saying.
>
> > Now, it seems, from the article, that the law enforcement people are
> > very satisified with the out come of this case in point.
>
> I have too many friends and family members in the cops to imagine that a
> news story tells us what they really think of this case. There was a D.A.
> in NY who charged a guy with attempted murder when he shot someone who was
> literally beating one of his neighbors to death, the D.A. dropped the
> charges when he realized there was no way in hell he would ever find a jury
> to convict the guy, the public thought he did the right thing. So, does the
> fact that the charges were dropped mean "the law enforcement people" were
> "very satisfied" with the case, or that they just recognized they would
> never get a conviction?
Conviction for WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Coming to the rescue of his neighbor!!!!!
This is idiocy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where is there common sense in the law, or those who apply it.
> > Oops, there are those naging questions again. But that's your problem,
> > ain't it.
>
> Anyone who believes what he reads in the papers because it happens to agree
> with his biases has way bigger problems than I do.
> > We ALL like happy endings where the bad guy gets his ass kicked over the
> > goal post!!!!!!
>
> Ah, here's where you post your ironclad proof that this character was a
> card-carrying "bad guy" and not a drunk or petty thief trying to flee or
> whatever. Shall we wait?
>
> > Your questions just look to make the good guys, bad!!!!!!!
>
> Still trying to substitute one of your speeches for what someone else
> believes. Again, if this guy was a crook breaking into someone's home, then
> so far as I'm concerned he bears the responsibility for what happened to
> him. But also again, we don't really know what happened, we don't know if
> the cops had the situation in hand or what, we're all just speculating, the
> difference being that you're acting as if you have all the facts in front of
> you, and you don't. If this guy was some scumbag home invasion robber, good
> riddance, until we actually know that, I prefer to reserve judgement, while
> you prefer to yell "Who cares." So be it.
Just how many more "IF*'s are you going to throw into the equation.
What, are you the NYC DA, YOU just pointed out, who is looking for a
conviction on the Doc, who came to the rescue of the cops who were
getting their ass kicked by the purp.
THAT's, your deal!!!!!
Screw all this other BS, and tell everyone that ain't EXACTLY, what you
are doing here!!!!
Mr. NY DA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tony Novacheck
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:07:11 -0600, "Miles O'Neal" <m...@rru.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The courts have ruled over and over, all
>>over the US of A, that *there is no requirement for
>>the police to protect you or prevent crimes*.
>
>People never seem to understand that. Protecting you from
>unforeseeable circumstances just isn't the police department's job.
>
>Pete
>
>
Preface: When I say "you", I am referring to those who disagree with me, not
Pete.
Let's also not forget that it has been ruled in a court of law that the police
don't even have to stop a crime in progress if they don't want to. Pretty much
leaves it up to you if something happens to you. This whole argument about
guns kinda reminds me of fire extinguishers ... Why do we need fire
extinguishers around the house? We have the fire department at out disposal,
so why not just call them if a fire breaks out on your stove? Just go to your
little safe room, call the fire department, and wait for them. Or just pour a
glass of water (pepper spray) on the fire (criminal) and wait for the firemen
(police) to put out the rest. Not willing to take the chance with fire?
Neither am I with criminals.
Just because you live in a safe community with guards, gates, walls, and
police doesn't mean that everyone else does. just because you are willing to
take your chances in your little town with police and fire response times,
doesn't mean we have the same response times in our big downtown areas. Just
because you may be surrounded by police and security devices doesn't mean the
rest of us do. Just because you may have the means to spend money on round the
clock security devices, systems, or people, doesn't mean everyone does. Just
because you may live in an area that you only hear about crime but never see or
experience doesn't mean the rest of the world does.
Just because the system you may preach about works for you in your own
little private, protected, sheltered life doesn't mean it will work for anyone
else. Like I said ... if you want to live that way, that's fine with me. Just
don't *you* limit *my* options, especially when my situation may be different
than yours. The first time I hear of a criminal using an RPG to commit a
crime, I expect to have the right to buy one IF I SO CHOOSE, the very next
damned day. Otherwise, advantage: criminal. Now shut up and stop trying to
limit my options to protect myself in our unchecked, evergrowing population of
thugs and drugs.
Lostpup198
'97 FXSTSB (...and then some!)
JAMFHDO #1
http://members.aol.com/Lostpup198/
Greg Pierce
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:43:00 -0800, j...@3inthekey.com wrote:
>
>> Listen, sensei, survival depends on not walking in front of a bus and
>> eating right. Where do you get this stuff - have you memorized Star Wars
>> or something?
>
> Awfully quick with the smart aleck response, there, Jim.
>
> May we safely conclude that neither you nor anyone you care about has ever
> been raped, pistol-whipped, murdered, stabbed, etc?
Typically, when someone a liberal knows gets shot, stabbed, or raped, the
liberal in question then claims that we need to ban guns, knives, or dicks.
You know, those are what did the shooting, stabbing, or raping, NOT the
poor, impoverished, raised-in-a-broken-home perpetrator.
Man, are you a clueless newb or what ;-)
--
Greg
--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.
Greg Pierce
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:
>
> "tomkatf" <tomfar...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3FC4D04D...@cox.net...
>> The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) website...
>>
>> http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/index.htm
>>
>> where you can buy surplus M-1's, Springfield '03's, '03A3's and other
>> goodies for reasonable prices from Uncle Sam!
>>
>> ;-P
>>
>> Best,
>> Tom
>
>
> Cool, I have a pair of the 03's, One built by Winchester, the other by
> Remmington.
> .30-06 kicks butt.
Ineed to score myself one. Not to mention an M1 Garand, which Patton
described as "the greatest battle implement ever devised". Kim du Toit
made a comment that I agree with - he said that if Patton tried an M-16
that he would throw it away in disgust saying "What kind of bullshit is
this, soldier?" Not only do I want one of each of those, but I also would
like to have an M-14. That would be the ultimate collection: the finest
US battle rifles ever made.
Steve Eaton
Rifles of course, none of that pansy assed pistola fodder firin' stuff.
Well, maybe the carbines would be cool too, but only after I get the rifles.
I'm also looking for the bayonets for the 1903s, they seem to be more rare
and more expensive than the weapon itself.
Steve Eaton
"Miles O'Neal" <m...@rru.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.27....@rru.com...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:00:41 +0000, Anthony Fremont wrote:
>
> >
> > "Amps" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote
> >
> >> Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking
> > at
> >> this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
> >> IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't
> > shoot
> >> someone just because they walked into your house.
> >
> > Speak for the laws in your locality/state/country/continent. In Texas
> > deadly force is authorized as long as the homeowner is "fearing for
their
> > life" or when protecting their (or even someone else's) property. Hell
you
> > don't even have to wait for the criminal to come into your home, you can
> > shoot him thru the window/door if he is threatening you.
>
> In Texas, if someone is on your property at night,
> and you have any reason to believe they are up to
> criminal mischief, you may shoot them. OT1H, this
> is bizarre to me. You could shoot some kid TPing
> your yard. OTOH, if it *is* someone up to no good,
> you don't have to wait until they shoot first. In
> the twelve years I've been here, I haven't heard of
> a single case of someone not up to criminal mischief
> getting shot, so I guess it's working.
Actually, the custom of being legally able to kill some one on your
property at night is as old as law is itself. Such laws were well
established
before they were broughtto Europe, in the Roman 14 tablets.The first
verifiable proof
of this sort of law was found in present day Iraq in the 1940's. The Law of
Eshunna,
found on two stone tablets, dating from about 2000BCE. These predate the
code of
Hammarabi by nearly 250 years, and are believed to be the codified remnants
of the Summarian/Akkadian Code of Ur-Nammu, of which only 4 or 5 laws
survive that can be deciphered, due to the bad condition of the tablets.
The code of Ur-Nammu is first complete codified set of laws that can be
verified as written
They were derived from and followed common practice at the
time and are thought to date from 2400BCE. For those keeping score that is
about 900 years before Mosaic law was codified in the 10 commandments, and
more than 3100 years before Sharia was established by the Muslims.
The laws laws of Eshunna state that "if a man is seized in the cropfield
of a muskenum (lower class man) in broad daylight, he shall measure out 10
sheckels of silver,
He seized at night he shall die; he shall not live"
The thought is that only those associated with black magic and witchcraft
worked
their thievery at night, and sorcery and the like was believed to be much
more detrimental
to the community than was ordinary thievery.
There are many examples of laws that require the death penalty for anyone
casting
magic and spells over a man's crops.
I know it's arcane, but I thought you might be interested in knowing just
how far
the precedent of legally killing someone for being on your property at night
went back.
It is apparently as old as human civilization.
This type of law was also common among the Han people of northern China and
can be
traced at least back until 10,000BCE, though not written. Likely it goes
back to the beginning
of farming, as the simply was not a time when the Han people were not
there.(read:Peking man).
>
> Now, I want to hear from the folks who condemn gun
> ownership. The courts have ruled over and over, all
> over the US of A, that *there is no requirement for
> the police to protect you or prevent crimes*. And we
> all know there are way too few police. So who ya gonna
> call? Hmmm? And what happens until they get there?
> I mean, besides you or your kid getting raped and
> tortured, maybe killed.
>
> -Miles
Throughout human history, one has been responsible for protecting oneself.
The gun haters apparently believe that the reality of the situation has
changed. Fine by me,
people like that just make me and my family safer by offering themselves up
as easier targets for the monsters.
I wish that they were right, but we've as a general rule, only within the
last
100 years or so, as a species, progressed beyond the "talio" being the
ordinary and normal recourse to being victimized. Police have never, ever,
not even once in all of history been able to protect one on a society wide
level.
It is only within the last 150 years or so that anyone even suggested that
they should.
The police always have been, and are now existant to protect the interest of
the
state, and the community. Their role has always been to clean up the mess
and
document AFTER a crime has been committed.
Howard Aubrey
"DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
I never tell anyone how to vote. And my assessment of these trailer trash
was right
on, they probably went straight to Walmart after the pictures were taken.
Then
some fine dining at Stuckey's. Then back to the double wide for the
Roseanne
marathon. Clean the guns and hope and pray that someone comes near them
so they can let all of their years of failure and despair come free in
a few seconds of overzealous 'defense'. This is their entire life.
This is *your* entire life. Pitiful.
cheers...
HJA
unafraid
>
>
Howard Aubrey
You must live in the sticks, my PD has a 2-3 response time for the
entire city.
RonSonic
wrote:
Yeah, you proved him wrong, huh.
>cheers...
>
>HJA
>unafraid
No need to be afraid, just get accustomed to irrelevency.
Ron
RonSonic
Don't forget to get a Krag while you're at it. It didn't have a real long run,
but damn talk about smooth and plenty accurate.
Ron
RonSonic
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:00:41 +0000, Anthony Fremont wrote:
>
>>
>> "Amps" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking
>> at
>>> this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
>>> IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't
>> shoot
>>> someone just because they walked into your house.
>>
>> Speak for the laws in your locality/state/country/continent. In Texas
>> deadly force is authorized as long as the homeowner is "fearing for their
>> life" or when protecting their (or even someone else's) property. Hell you
>> don't even have to wait for the criminal to come into your home, you can
>> shoot him thru the window/door if he is threatening you.
>
>In Texas, if someone is on your property at night,
>and you have any reason to believe they are up to
>criminal mischief, you may shoot them. OT1H, this
>is bizarre to me. You could shoot some kid TPing
>your yard. OTOH, if it *is* someone up to no good,
>you don't have to wait until they shoot first. In
>the twelve years I've been here, I haven't heard of
>a single case of someone not up to criminal mischief
>getting shot, so I guess it's working.
There was a repo man who got it a few years ago. Questionable, yes. Not enough
to change what's generally a good law.
>Now, I want to hear from the folks who condemn gun
>ownership. The courts have ruled over and over, all
>over the US of A, that *there is no requirement for
>the police to protect you or prevent crimes*. And we
>all know there are way too few police. So who ya gonna
>call? Hmmm? And what happens until they get there?
>I mean, besides you or your kid getting raped and
>tortured, maybe killed.
Remember the court case that produced that ruling? Horrifying.
Ron
Miles O'Neal
> Typically, when someone a liberal ... raped, the
> liberal in question then claims that we need to ban ...
> dicks.
One more reason to own a gun. Go
ahead and ban them, then try to collect.
Right after you destroy your own, of course.
[The "you" here is not Greg. Duh.]
Miles O'Neal
us to know whether this was a situation where it was safe for
the homeowner to shoot the perp, since he was fighting two
cops at the time.
Well, it was around here, and everything I've heard on the radio,
including quotes from the sheriff's office, is that the police
were quite content that the guy shot the perp. Not a *peep* of
a problem. Nothing but thanks.
I hope I meet the guy and get to shake his hand.
-Miles
Amps
"> How do the cops sharpen their skills.
>
> They practice their shooting skills on live subjects?
Most of them have no skills. Hell, most of the LEOS these days look at
carrying a firearm as an icky part of their job. When I went through the
academy back in the mid-80's we were issued Ruger GP-100's. Rugers have by
far some of the worst triggers out of the box. Half the men and all the
women could barely qualify with these things, yet most didn't bother
switching. I qualified with my SIG P220 as soon as I could so I could dump
the GP-100.
>> What these morons fail to realize is that although the
> > local authorities might not charge the shooter, a violation of civil
rights
> > case will probably be brought against him. The feds don't give a fuck
about
> > the local laws. Think OJ on this one. Innocent on the local level,
guilty of
> > the federal Civil Rights case. No jail time, just certain financial
ruin.
> > Chew on that fact weekend warriors.
>
>
> <Rich chews and spits on the floor in front of you>
>
> Doesn't change a thing!!!!
>
> If it's between YOU, and the criminal in a showdown, what are YOU going
> to do.
>
> You going to pull that trigger, or are YOU going stand there like a deer
> in the headlights, thinking about those court cases being slapped on
> you!!!!!!!
>
> What's it going to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Time's up, your dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> See how that works.
>
> Simple, ain't it.
>
>
It's simple for a spittin' on the floor kinda guy like you. But let's get
real, you have no idea what you'd do in that situation because you've never
been in it. I know you have fantasies of blowing away the "purp" (BTW, the
word is "perpetrator" not purpetrator) as you call him. No problem if you
truly feel threatened and can convince the cops and the DA that was the
case. But, if you shoot some unarmed guy who was lost and wandered into your
backyard, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that it was
justified. Especially you, since you like to go on public internet forums
and brag about your guns, your shooting competitions, and how you like it
when the "purp" gets blown away. A slick DA looking to furthur his
political career will roast your ass over the coals. Your twisted wild west
showdown fantasies make you look like someone who is itching to shoot
someone. That will not look good to a jury. As far as the original case that
was the starting point of this thread, I will say this - If the guy that was
shot was trying to get a deputies gun during the fight, then the homeowner
did the right thing. If the homeowner shot the guy just because their was a
fight going on in his backyard then he was wrong and will probably pay the
price in one way or another.
DGDevin
>
> I never tell anyone how to vote. And my assessment of these trailer trash
> was right
> on, they probably went straight to Walmart after the pictures were taken.
> Then
> some fine dining at Stuckey's. Then back to the double wide for the
> Roseanne
> marathon. Clean the guns and hope and pray that someone comes near them
> so they can let all of their years of failure and despair come free in
> a few seconds of overzealous 'defense'. This is their entire life.
>
> This is *your* entire life. Pitiful.
What's pitiful is you projecting all your self-loathing onto people who are
probably happier than you can dream of being, what's pitiful is your hatred
of folks who have never done you any harm and who are in many ways the
backbone of the nation, the people who build most everything and fix what
breaks and fight the nation's wars and pay the taxes that arrogant liberal
assholes like you like to spent on castle-in-the-air "reforms" that never
seem to work. Ah, but the reason is that these people refuse to think the
way you want them to, so you dismiss them as lowbrow trailer trash, that
makes you feel better about yourself too I suppose. What a jerk.
Rich Koerner
Amps wrote:
>
> "> How do the cops sharpen their skills.
> >
> > They practice their shooting skills on live subjects?
>
> Most of them have no skills. Hell, most of the LEOS these days look at
> carrying a firearm as an icky part of their job. When I went through the
> academy back in the mid-80's we were issued Ruger GP-100's. Rugers have by
> far some of the worst triggers out of the box. Half the men and all the
> women could barely qualify with these things, yet most didn't bother
> switching. I qualified with my SIG P220 as soon as I could so I could dump
> the GP-100.
So then,it would seem that aside from the badge, uniform, law study, and
choice of firearm the citizen and LEO are equals on the field in a
conflict with criminal behaviour.
> > > Chew on that fact weekend warriors.
> >
> >
> > <Rich chews and spits on the floor in front of you>
> >
> > Doesn't change a thing!!!!
> >
> > If it's between YOU, and the criminal in a showdown, what are YOU going
> > to do.
> >
> > You going to pull that trigger, or are YOU going stand there like a deer
> > in the headlights, thinking about those court cases being slapped on
> > you!!!!!!!
> >
> > What's it going to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Time's up, your dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > See how that works.
> >
> > Simple, ain't it.
> >
> >
>
> It's simple for a spittin' on the floor kinda guy like you. But let's get
> real, you have no idea what you'd do in that situation because you've never
> been in it.
As would the LEO, till the event appears.
Citizen, LEO, no difference.
Look, the LEO made a decision to take on a job that is more than likely
to put him/her in the position of conflict with the criminal element.
There is a chance to prepare for such an event.
For the citizen, our culture discourages such preparedness. Dial 911
and wait, you are told.
But, there is something WRONG here.
The citizen and the LEO, in the face of a life threatening encounter,
are NOT on an EQUAL playing field.
The LEO can pull your piece, and be justified because of the choice of
career.
Let a citizen do the SAME thing, and it's a whole different ball game.
Now, given that the criminal is truly a criminal, if the trigger is
pulled, and the hunted felon is put to rest,..... the news media
praises the LEO, but questions the actions of the citizen under the
exact same event. And, the DA, like you said, is hunting for bear,
looking to hang the citizens ass out to dry.
So, what message does this send to the community.
Let the cops do their job, don't watch their backs, don't get involved,
dial 911, watch, and wait.
This is all designed for a culture of inactive citizens in the war
against crime.
Let's face it.
In the war against crime, you LEO's can use all the help you can get.
Which, this article points out.
Most likely, their are two more cops alive, to see their families
another day, because of a responsible citizen who cares enough to be
proactive.
What's Problem With That!!!!!!
> I know you have fantasies
Boy, what a picture you paint here.
These same fantasies you painted can be just as easily said to exist,
and motivate the LEO for their career choice too!!!! Think about that
for a second.
But No, these are not my fantasies, but more a likely hood to become a
REALITY in these times, as our daily news media constantly points out to
us. It filled with CRIME events that has just happened blocks away from
where we live. Think of the newspaper and TV coverage as a wake up
call, to think in terms of being prepared for that more than likely
event to come, where it's YOUR house is featured in the nightly news
where criminals had their way.
I don't look forward to taking a life. I cried with my son over a dying
family pet.
But, I've made the decision, I will protect my ass and my family at all
cost instantly.
You will NOT hear the 911 tape on the news with my wife or son's dying
words for the world to hear, like we ALL have heard on the TV, because
the cops could not get there in time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THAT, is reality, not some GUN NUT fantasy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me, those 911 tapes were never on TV or used in court by the DA.
The same DA, that would like to win with OUR dying words HIS case. Yet,
bring US to trial, because we LIVED to tell about it!!!!
Now THAT,.... is a SICK reality!!!!!
> of blowing away the "purp" (BTW, the
> word is "perpetrator" not purpetrator) as you call him. No problem if you
> truly feel threatened and can convince the cops and the DA that was the
> case. But, if you shoot some unarmed guy who was lost and wandered into your
> backyard, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that it was
> justified.
Come on, where is the threat in that. Transients walk through the yards
here all the time, casing the houses for their next robbery.
> Especially you, since you like to go on public internet forums
> and brag about your guns,
Brag!!!!!!!!
Hardly.
> your shooting competitions, and how you like it
Where!!!!
Show me.
> when the "purp" gets blown away. A slick DA looking to furthur his
> political career will roast your ass over the coals. Your twisted wild west
> showdown fantasies make you look like someone who is itching to shoot
> someone. That will not look good to a jury. As far as the original case that
> was the starting point of this thread, I will say this - If the guy that was
> shot was trying to get a deputies gun during the fight, then the homeowner
> did the right thing.
Exactly my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> If the homeowner shot the guy just because their was a
> fight going on in his backyard then he was wrong and will probably pay the
> price in one way or another.
Yeah, stand back and let the cops do their job, but *WATCH* THEIR
BACK!!!!!!!!!!
THAT, is the RIGHT Thing To DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any problem with that!!!!!!!
DGDevin
>
> Conviction for WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Coming to the rescue of his neighbor!!!!!
>
> This is idiocy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Where is there common sense in the law, or those who apply it.
Oh, I agree, I was merely illustrating that your claim that because no
prosecution resulted means the law enforcement folks are happy with the
situation is fantasy. And in this case, the guy who fired the shot used a
gun which wasn't legally registered to him in NY or something, the story is
in a book I have someplace about citizens defending themselves with
firearms, the cases that happen all the time but that the media for some
reason generally ignores, I'll try to find it and post the title etc.,
interesting read.
> Just how many more "IF*'s are you going to throw into the equation.
As many as it takes to get you to admit you dont know what really happened
any more than I do.
> What, are you the NYC DA, YOU just pointed out, who is looking for a
> conviction on the Doc, who came to the rescue of the cops who were
> getting their ass kicked by the purp.
Please post whatever information you have that shows the cops were getting
their asses kicked. If that was happening then the homeowner was probably
justified in shooting, but again, please post a link or something where we
can read about that being the case. If you cannot do that, then how about
you stop pretending you know that is what happened, because you don't.
> THAT's, your deal!!!!!
>
> Screw all this other BS, and tell everyone that ain't EXACTLY, what you
> are doing here!!!!
I'm going to need a translator before I can respond to the above sentence.
Please calm down a little before posting Mr. Bunker.
> Mr. NY DA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Truly incredible, you have an astonishing ability to read what you want to
read rather than what is actually written....
DGDevin
news:rTpxb.60004$O5.3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "> How do the cops sharpen their skills.
> >
> > They practice their shooting skills on live subjects?
>
> Most of them have no skills.
Sadly all too true, I used to shoot at a range where cops had exclusive use
once a week, we always knew when they'd been there, bullet holes all over
the place, overhead lights blown out, holes in the barriers between shooting
stations, a real mess. These guys had to qualify once year, most of them
got in some intense practice right before then, and ignored their weapon the
rest of the year, they actually seemed to resent having to practice,
something I found very surprising, but then most of the spent more time
doing paperwork than chasing purps and/or perps.
>Hell, most of the LEOS these days look at
> carrying a firearm as an icky part of their job. When I went through the
> academy back in the mid-80's we were issued Ruger GP-100's. Rugers have by
> far some of the worst triggers out of the box. Half the men and all the
> women could barely qualify with these things
Several guys who used to work for me have been through the academy recently,
they were warned by some old-timers not to appear *too" proficient with
their weapons because it raises doubts in the mind of management about
lawsuits in future. These days, when a cop shoots someone, even an
undoubted scumbag crook, the lawyers will dig up his academy record to show
that he was a crack shot and got a caution during the "shoot-don't shoot"
training about firing too quickly or something, so some departments
literally don't want cops who appear too good with their guns.
>As far as the original case that
> was the starting point of this thread, I will say this - If the guy that
was
> shot was trying to get a deputies gun during the fight, then the homeowner
> did the right thing. If the homeowner shot the guy just because their was
a
> fight going on in his backyard then he was wrong and will probably pay the
> price in one way or another.
Seems clear to me, yet some folks will insist we don't really need to *know*
what happened, we can just sort of assume and yell "Who cares" about the
facts.
Howard Aubrey
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9d7csvcgio3u8c3tv...@4ax.com...
No, I proved myself right, some might interpret it
both ways though...
>
> >cheers...
> >
> >HJA
> >unafraid
>
> No need to be afraid, just get accustomed to irrelevency.
What's that like, you seem to have a lot of experience?
Does the paranoia come with it? So much to fear, so
little time Ron?
>
> Ron
cheers...
HJA
confident
>
Howard Aubrey
> >
> > They practice their shooting skills on live subjects?
>
> Most of them have no skills. Hell, most of the LEOS these days look at
> carrying a firearm as an icky part of their job. When I went through the
> academy back in the mid-80's we were issued Ruger GP-100's. Rugers have by
> far some of the worst triggers out of the box. Half the men and all the
> women could barely qualify with these things, yet most didn't bother
> switching. I qualified with my SIG P220 as soon as I could so I could dump
> the GP-100.
>
A few years ago a NJ or NY State trooper was gunned down
by fugitive Thomas Manning. The trooper approached the car with his hand
on his weapon, recognized Manning, and emptied his pistol into the
car which also had a passenger, also wanted, in the front seat.
He missed with every shot. During the trial it came up that this
was the third time the officer had been in a shooting at less than 5 feet,
emptying his weapon every time, and never hit a perp.
Not to lessen the tragedy, it does support your contention
of 'no skills'.
cheers...
HJA
Rich Koerner
Miles O'Neal wrote:
>
> Someone was saying that "the article" didn't explain enough for
> us to know whether this was a situation where it was safe for
> the homeowner to shoot the perp, since he was fighting two
> cops at the time.
>
> Well, it was around here, and everything I've heard on the radio,
> including quotes from the sheriff's office, is that the police
> were quite content that the guy shot the perp. Not a *peep* of
> a problem. Nothing but thanks.
>
> I hope I meet the guy and get to shake his hand.
>
> -Miles
There you go!!!!!!
As it should be!!!!!!!
Rich Koerner
Amps wrote:
>
> "> How do the cops sharpen their skills.
> >
> > They practice their shooting skills on live subjects?
>
> Most of them have no skills. Hell, most of the LEOS these days look at
> carrying a firearm as an icky part of their job. When I went through the
> academy back in the mid-80's we were issued Ruger GP-100's. Rugers have by
> far some of the worst triggers out of the box. Half the men and all the
> women could barely qualify with these things, yet most didn't bother
> switching. I qualified with my SIG P220 as soon as I could so I could dump
> the GP-100.
So then, it would seem that aside from the badge, uniform, law study,
Citizen, LEO, no difference.
The LEO can pull THEIR piece, and be justified because of the choice of
Bob Flint
>
>In Texas, if someone is on your property at night,
>and you have any reason to believe they are up to
>criminal mischief, you may shoot them. OT1H, this
>is bizarre to me. You could shoot some kid TPing
>your yard. OTOH, if it *is* someone up to no good,
>you don't have to wait until they shoot first. In
>the twelve years I've been here, I haven't heard of
>a single case of someone not up to criminal mischief
>getting shot, so I guess it's working.
>
>Now, I want to hear from the folks who condemn gun
>ownership. The courts have ruled over and over, all
>over the US of A, that *there is no requirement for
>the police to protect you or prevent crimes*. And we
>all know there are way too few police. So who ya gonna
>call? Hmmm? And what happens until they get there?
>I mean, besides you or your kid getting raped and
>tortured, maybe killed.
>
>-Miles
>
In Canada, it's real hard to shoot people. They arrest store owners for shooting crooks who just shot them!!
I understand that if I want to shoot an intruder, I have to prove that he had a weapon of deadly force, AND that I
couldn't escape by even squeezing out of the bathroom window!!
You could shoot bin laden setting up a rocket launcher in your driveway from out your window, and you'd get 25 years...
Tony Hwang
Hi,
Even down there, if you want to shoot, make sure you kill.
Dead can't say anything. Otherwise, shooter can make some
trips to court room to argue with the guy he shot.
Funny thing, there are most guns per capita in U.S. but their
crime rate is not the lowest. I think gun related death is
more than traffic accident death?
Tony
Jeff Engelmann
>> In Canada, it's real hard to shoot people. They arrest store owners for
>shooting crooks who just shot them!!
>>
>> I understand that if I want to shoot an intruder, I have to prove that he
>had a weapon of deadly force, AND that I
>> couldn't escape by even squeezing out of the bathroom window!!
>>
>> You could shoot bin laden setting up a rocket launcher in your driveway
>from out your window, and you'd get 25 years...
>Hi,
>Even down there, if you want to shoot, make sure you kill.
>Dead can't say anything. Otherwise, shooter can make some
>trips to court room to argue with the guy he shot.
>Funny thing, there are most guns per capita in U.S. but their
>crime rate is not the lowest.
Who said it was or should be?? The crime rate has more to do with social
factors than with arms in the hands of the citizens. I don't remember anyone
making the case that gun ownership is a panacea for crime rate statistics. It
is, however, a right to self protection that should not be blithely dismissed.
I think gun related death is
>more than traffic accident death?
You thought wrong. It's not even close.
Jeff
Steve Eaton
Fill me in Ron. What's a Krag?
Miles O'Neal
>> You could shoot bin laden setting up a rocket launcher in your driveway
>> from out your window, and you'd get 25 years...
If I knew it was Ol' Sama, I'd chance it.
> Hi,
> Even down there, if you want to shoot, make sure you kill. Dead can't say
> anything. Otherwise, shooter can make some trips to court room to argue
> with the guy he shot. Funny thing, there are most guns per capita in U.S.
> but their crime rate is not the lowest. I think gun related death is more
> than traffic accident death?
That's a myth that many in the media like to
perpetuate. They never actually *say* this
(AFAIK) but they certainly like to give that
impression. Traffic death is way, waaaayyy
ahead of gun deaths - and any other deaths
by causes other than natural.
Greg Pierce
Allow me:
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P549
Greg Pierce
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:
>
>
The Swiss have more guns per capita than the US.
There are far more traffic accident deaths than gun related deaths in the
US.
Lord Vulcan
"DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
> "Howard Aubrey" <howard...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jQnxb.4333$y5.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> >
> > I never tell anyone how to vote. And my assessment of these trailer
trash
> > was right
> > on, they probably went straight to Walmart after the pictures were
taken.
> > Then
> > some fine dining at Stuckey's. Then back to the double wide for the
> > Roseanne
> > marathon. Clean the guns and hope and pray that someone comes near them
> > so they can let all of their years of failure and despair come free in
> > a few seconds of overzealous 'defense'. This is their entire life.
> >
> > This is *your* entire life. Pitiful.
Good call, Lord Howard.
> What's pitiful is you projecting all your self-loathing onto people who
are
> probably happier than you can dream of being, what's pitiful is your
hatred
> of folks who have never done you any harm and who are in many ways the
> backbone of the nation, the people who build most everything and fix what
> breaks and fight the nation's wars and pay the taxes that arrogant liberal
> assholes like you like to spent on castle-in-the-air "reforms" that never
> seem to work.
No worse than the borrow and spend conservative assholes who are driving
up the deficit by overspending for the equivalent of firecrackers - once
they're blown
up, you've got nothing for your money except some destruction. So what's
wrong in
investing in improving the quality of life and equality for all? That's in
the fucking Constitution
too, Diveinshit. The government's job is NOT ONLY to defend the country.
In the Constitution, one of the government's other jobs is also to promote
the general
welfare, and that ain't no words of "arrogant liberal assholes" - it's words
of our
Founding Fathers, you redneck hick fuck.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
1-form a more perfect Union [interesting how Reamgun was anti-Union]
2-establish Justice [ like Enron and all the other CEOs that will never go
to jail like Rash Limpdick should too]
3-insure domestic Tranquility [ not by having a fascist police state or
martial law like the Brits did to the colonists]
4-provide for a common defense [one-dimensional twits like you think this is
the ONLY thing the govt.
should be doing]
5-promote the general Welfare [what's wrong with that?]
6-secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves [ that don't mean looking out
for number one and fuck everyone else]
Figured it out yet, Diveinshit?
You either are stupid or you want to be stubbornly ignorant or
you are simply brainwashed. Either way, being defined as
trailer trash is a perfectly appropriate way to describe your mentality or
lack of.
So shove that into your McTurdburger and stuff it down your piehole.
LV
if only conservatives weren't such perverts
Bob Flint
>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:15:42 +0000, Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>>> You could shoot bin laden setting up a rocket launcher in your driveway
>>> from out your window, and you'd get 25 years...
>
>If I knew it was Ol' Sama, I'd chance it.
>
>> Hi,
>> Even down there, if you want to shoot, make sure you kill. Dead can't say
>> anything. Otherwise, shooter can make some trips to court room to argue
>> with the guy he shot. Funny thing, there are most guns per capita in U.S.
>> but their crime rate is not the lowest. I think gun related death is more
>> than traffic accident death?
>
>That's a myth that many in the media like to
>perpetuate. They never actually *say* this
>(AFAIK) but they certainly like to give that
>impression. Traffic death is way, waaaayyy
>ahead of gun deaths - and any other deaths
>by causes other than natural.
>
>-Miles
Miles do you know how many gun deaths there are in the US in a year?
curious...
Jeff Engelmann
>From: Bob Flint Fl...@nospam.thanks
>Date: 11/28/03 9:44 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <pe5gsvoehepgoj86f...@4ax.com>
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
Jeff
DGDevin
news:vLTxb.20115$W7.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> You either are stupid or you want to be stubbornly ignorant or
> you are simply brainwashed. Either way, being defined as
> trailer trash is a perfectly appropriate way to describe your mentality or
> lack of.
> So shove that into your McTurdburger and stuff it down your piehole.
And another sock pupper rises from the drawer and makes noises almost like
human speech, no sense mind you, just noises.
Greg Pierce
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:28:03 -0600, "Miles O'Neal" <m...@rru.com> wrote:
In the year 2000, there were 28,663 deaths by firearms. Here is the
breakdown of the types of firearms deaths:
Suicide: 16,586
Homicide: 10,801
Accidental Discharge: 776
Legal Intervention: 270
Undetermined Event: 230
Motor vehicle accidents account for 43,354 deaths per year. The total
deaths in the year 2000 were 2,403,351. Since major cardiovascular
disease accounted for 936,923 of these (approx. 40%), I would say
that you should be more worried about being killed by a cheeseburger
than either a car or a gun.
By looking at the totals alone, one would think their chances of dying
by a gunshot wound are a bit more than half of your chances of dying in
a car wreck. In reality, they are FAR lower. Assuming you aren't suicidal,
your chances of a self inflicted gunshot wound is zero. Death from an
accidental discharge is extremely unlikely, even for one who owns guns
or are around them all the time. It is also a cause that can be eliminated
by proper training and being safety conscious (this is true of many types
of accidental death). I will lump legal intervention (a shooting by a
police officer in the line of duty), undetermined (not really sure why or
how the person got shot) and homicide together. Since most homicide
victims are either criminals or are in commission of a crime, then your
chances of being a gunshot homicide victim are VERY small if you are
not a criminal. Once you take that into account, you find that, for the
average person, your odds of being killed by gunfire, for any reason, are
MUCH lower than your odds of dying in a car crash (were talking a
fraction of a percent). That is something to keep in perspective.
Here are compiled stats for leading causes of death:
http://www.packing.org/misc/LeadingCausesDeath_US.html
and a breakdown of firearms deaths:
http://www.packing.org/misc/FirearmstatsfromNationalVitalStatistics2email.html
GBrycki
>> > clear shot or a lucky one?
>> Why would that be a matter of importance for YOU to know!!!!!
>Just curious really
I think the point here is that the guy could just as easily have shot the cop.
G
GBrycki
>> is a Very Big Deal, pretending otherwise is childish and foolish.
>In the heat of an attack on your life, let's see what goes through your
>mind!!!!!!!!!
The security guard where I work is an ex-NYC cop. He quit the force after
having killed someone in the line of duty. Totally justified in doing so, the
"perp" shot first, and he probably saved his and his partner's life.
Still, the act of taking another human life...even in self-defense...was too
much for him to bare. He quit the force, because, as he told me, he didn't
ever want to be put in that position again.
And that happens to alot of police officers who have had to use deadly force.
Many wind up in some kind of therapy. Many have nightmares about it for years
afterwards. They don't just high-five each other and tell jokes about it over a
beer at the local cop-bar.
>There is only one thing that BETTER be on your mind, while YOU are in
>the middle of a criminal attack on your life, if you are going to live
>to tell about it another day.
>
This you would know from experience? If so, please share with us, and I'll
be the first one to apologize. But please don't post links to your fabulous
target-shooting victories, 'cause it ain't the same thing, Rich.
G
Lord Vulcan
"DGDevin" <dgd...@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
news:81Xxb.126390$Ec1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
feklar (was feklar@rock.com)
wrote:
>
>
>Amps wrote:
>>
>> > > I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, a lifetime NRA member, and
>> an
>> > > avid believer that we are all responsible for our personal and our
>> families
>> > > protection, but
>> >
>> >
>> > And, there's that BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by that, but...:)
>
>That means, everything preceeding the *but*, IS to be taken as
>meaningless.
>
>
>> >
>> > > I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
>> > > around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea.
>> >
>> > Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > What counts is target control was effective.
>>
>> Yeah, OK Dirty Harry. You wanna know who cares? The Lawyer that the family
>> of the deceased will hire to sue the shooter for wrongful death.
>
>Any different if one of the cops shot him!!!!!
>
>What would be the difference who fingered the trigger to stop the
>mayhem.
>
>
>> Also,
>> please define what the hell "Target Control" is.
>
>The ability to point and click with accuracy!!!!!
>
>> > > Did the bad guy
>> > > have a weapon?
>> >
>> > Again, who cares!!!!
>>
>> The Lawyer that will sue the shooter, The District Attorneys Office that may
>> file criminal charges,
>
>Who didn't file any charges!!!!
>
>The shooter saved the lives of the cops, and the other by-standers, had
>the purp gotten one of the cops guns, and shot up the town.
>
>
>> the deputies that were possibly in the line of fire,
>
>If they were in the line of fire at the time, we'd know of by the
>article's focus on the officer shot by the Doc!!!!
>
>Which, was not the case.
>
>Accuracy with firearms and reporting is a nice thing.
>
>
>> the nextdoor neighbors who might have caught a round had the shooter missed,
>> etc...
>
>Which was not the case. Was it.
>
>BTW, what makes you think every citizen with a hand gun is some sort of
>dumb ass hazard to the general public at large.
>
>There are many armed citizens who have put in the time investment to
>become more competent than some in law enforcement I've met. Having a
>badge and a gun is no validation the individual is any more, or less
>competent than an armed citizen who takes firearm responsibility very
>seriously.
>
>BTW, I KNEW, by YOUR *but*, at the get go, that we were going down this
>road at some point.
>
>Let's go back there for a second look.
>
>
>> I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, a lifetime NRA member,
>
>So, you sent in your check and got your membership.
>
>
>> and an
>> avid believer that we are all responsible for our personal and our families
>> protection,
>
>That's so nice to know, you ain't a gun grabber!!!!!
>
>How many barrels have to worn out during your years of range time. I'm
>on my third barrel now.
>
>Shoot any matches lately.
>
>Like one handed bull's eye matches,
>http://www.mts.net/~wrpa/bullseye-shooting.html
>
>Or, IPSC, http://www.ipsc.org/
>
>
>> but I'm not so sure that taking a shot at an unarmed man rolling
>> around on the grass with two cops is really a bright idea. Did the bad guy
>> have a weapon? Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life? Was it a
>> clear shot or a lucky one? The story doesn't really give much detail.
>
>From the article, it seems the cops were getting their ass kicked by the
>purp!!!!!
>
>What, you would want video footage, like watching COP'S on TV, to be
>available!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>> > What ever it takes to STOP the actions of an uninvited intruder, is what
>> > it takes!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> Again, you're wrong and have a very naive and childish way of looking at
>> this. You have the right to use deadly force ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN
>> IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BEING DIRECTED TO YOU. You can't shoot
>> someone just because they walked into your house.
>
>There are some places in this country where doing such a thing, can get
>you KILLED!!!!!
>
>Out here, we have house jackings. Like the criminals kick in the door,
>and RUSHES those inside with guns and/or knives in their hands. They
>came to fuck you up, so they can take your stuff. That's their deal.
>
>What, you want me to have a DON'T HURT ME conversation with them, as the
>blade cuts my son, or the round is squeezed off at my wife!!!!!!!!
>
>BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>> > Was there an immediate threat to anyone's life?
>> >
>> > What,.. surprise uninvited intruders walking in one you, IN YOUR OWN
>> > *HOME*, should NOT be a threatening experience!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Again, the people in the house were not being threatened. The intruder was
>> not brandishing a weapon. The intruder did not try to harm anyone. For all
>> anyone knows he could have been a person of diminished mental capacity that
>> was confused and in need of assistance.
>
>Yes, and the cops were called, and as it turned out, THEY were in NEED
>of assistance, as gathered from reading the article.
>
>
>
>
>> > BTW, why would you care in the first place.
>> >
>>
>> I care because i'm tired of being penalized and ostricisized for being a gun
>> owner.
>
>Sound like the gun graber liberals got you to tuck your tail between
>your legs.
>
>
>
>> People with your attitude are what give gun owners a bad rep.
>
>You called my Dirty Harry!!!!!!
>
>What's negative about that!!!!!
>
>I should be thankful for a no nonsence cop like Dirty Harry on the
>streets cleaning up the crime and gangs around here.
>
>
>
>
>> , and
>> give the liberal gun grabbing politicians all the fuel they need to enact
>> new and useless gunlaws.
>
>My words here are not likely to be used here by any politician for any
>new gun law.
>
>They don't need me, or anyone else. They're PROGRAMED to grab guns, to
>GET VOTES!!!!
>
>Let's get REAL about THAT, right now!!!!!!
>
>
>> > > Was it a
>> > > clear shot or a lucky one?
>
>You speak like someone who doesn't point and click very much.
>
>If you did, you'd know about the luck factor.
>
>What are the odds of shooting one arrow on top of another arrow, like
>Robinhood DID in the story books.
>
>What, would you say the odds are of doing that more than twice, and how
>much LUCK is involved.
>
>Here's my answer to that, http://timeelect.com/Archery.htm
>
>Now, what are the odds of firing a bullet through the same hole twice in
>a target is!!!!!!
>
>At ten yeards, I've done it. In front of the range captain at the
>range, while I was sighting in my colt 45 handgun.
>
>Now, you KNOW, what I mean by Target Control!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>> > Why would that be a matter of importance for YOU to know!!!!!
>>
>> Just curious really
>>
>> > > The story doesn't really give much detail.
>
>Like most articles of this type, it is always assumed that anyone
>without a badge and uniform holding that firearm, is an incompetent boob
>with a firearm. There is always some question of that element, as
>presented for public consumption by the media elites. And,... THAT,
>is NOT always the case!!!!!
>
>
>BTW, did you know that in the USA CA Olympics, the first Gold Metal
>winner for the USA was never featured in the Gold Metal race by the TV
>coverage, because SHE, won it in the Free Pistol Competition.
>
>The anti-gun media could not deal with it, and put it up there on the
>screen for the world to see!!!!!!!!!!
>
>If that women had been in a track event, we would all know here name
>today!!!!!!!
>
>THINK, about THAT, for a second or two.
>
>What did that women have to go through to make the women's Olympic
>Pistol Team.
>
>Without a badge or uniform, in who's eyes, is she some incompetent boob
>with a handgun.
>
>Really, think about this.
>
>Also, just who wants YOU, to THINK this way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Then, more importantly, WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Rich Koerner,
>Time Electronics.
>http://www.timeelect.com
>
>Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
> Music & Studio Production,
>Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Rich told that chump right
ptaakh...@sbcglobal.net
subtract where I hang at to unmunge
feklar's guitar playing:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/kahless
This will always take you to my ftp server if its up.
The Amazing and Mysterious Powers of Mexican Females.
Chapter 1: Levitation and Summoning.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/images/mexwench.jpg
feklar (was feklar@rock.com)
DGDevin told that chump right
feklar (was feklar@rock.com)
<nutant...@heewo.com> wrote:
>1-form a more perfect Union [interesting how Reamgun was anti-Union]
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/sounds/Arnold_Schwarzenegger-arnold_laugh.wav
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/sounds/Arnold_Schwarzenegger-you_idiot.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/sounds/Arnold_Schwarzenegger-what_the_hell_were_you_thinking.wav
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/sounds/Arnold_Schwarzenegger_chillout_dickwad.wav
Rich Koerner
I knew where he was going.
I also doubt the LEO background too.
But still:
Does it matter if the shot was taken from 10 inches, 10 feet, 10 yards,
etc..... away.
Does it matter if the shooter's position was standing, sitting,
knelling, prone, upside down, etc...
Does it matter if is was a clear day, clouded day, rainy day, etc....
Does it matter if the gun was single action, double action, revolver,
semi auto, etc...
Does it matter if the bullet was 22, 32, 357, 41, 44, 45, 50, etc...
calibre.
Does it matter what day of the week it happened.
Does it matter what the age of the shooter was.
What does it matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only thing that does matter is that, there are four GOOD people who
are alive to see tomorrow, and one wanted criminal who will not.
The out come was as it was because of a proactive armed citizen, who did
the right thing.
That, is how it *should* be, on the battle field, of the war against
crime.
All the GOOD guys, both the LEO's and armed citizens, should learn to
work together, and make up a winning team, in this war against crime.
Rich Koerner
As I was typing this, there was something in the back of my mind, that
had some meaning here, but I could not remember what is was.
It's a URL to a site where there was a graphic.
I found it, and I'll shoot it in below.
Rich Koerner wrote:
>
> GBrycki wrote:
> >
> > >> > Was it a
> > >> > clear shot or a lucky one?
> >
> > >> Why would that be a matter of importance for YOU to know!!!!!
> >
> > >Just curious really
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.despair.com/demotivators/cluelessness.html
Makes ya wonder, what this is all about.
Tony Novacheck
><nutant...@heewo.com> wrote:
>
>>1-form a more perfect Union [interesting how Reamgun was anti-Union]
THe only people pro-union are either in a union, run the union, or running for
election. Unions are only useful to the unions mostly, with the members
running a far second. They cause price increases in products, which causes an
unnecessary drain on the economy, and the consumer's paycheck.
Lostpup198
'97 FXSTSB (...and then some!)
JAMFHDO #1
http://members.aol.com/Lostpup198/
Rich Koerner
Who the hell said it was. It wasn't me.
Target control, is target control.
Period, end of story.
CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He's pissed cause I said, "Who Cares".
And frankly, I STILL don't care, about that perp buying the farm, in
that article.
I don't care about any wanted felon buying the farm at the hands of a
LEO or citizen of this country, in any news article, any radio report,
or TV report.
The criminal made the decision for a life of crime, like he didn't KNOW
there were RISKS involved.
The POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Armed citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Other criminals who got in their way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I care about the GOOD guys, not the BAD guys.
SO, what's your point!!!!
I should shed a tear for every criminal who bites the dust in the news
media.
Do you have tears running down your face every night watching the
news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right, you DON'T, because YOU don't care. You're as numb as the rest of
us in front of your TV set with all the crime stories every night.
Read all my posts in this thread.
<after thought>
As an engineer sometimes has to face a POSSIBLE suicide by train at the
crossings, or a pushed passenger incident at the subway platform,...
there is no way to predict such an event will ever happen.
Likewise, the same for the LEO or armed citizen with the criminals
around you where you reside.
And, with all the constant reporting of crime events on the TV and in
the newspapers, why should that NOT be taken as a heads up on the war
against crime. Are they NOT saying, crime is in your neighborhood, and
possibly YOUR House is next!!!!!!
Thus, making such an event MORE than likely to knock at your
door!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why should this NOT be taken as a warning to "Be Prepared"!!!!!!
Otherwise, why are they continuously showing us this stuff.
Note - The REAL issues here, are WHO Do You Trust to save your life,
when crime knocks at your door!!!!!!!!!!
911 or Colt.
Then, there is the reaction of THOSE who don't agree with YOUR personal
decision to *protect* the ONLY life you get in this world.
That, really, is the bottom line issues here relevant .
feklar (was feklar@rock.com)
wrote:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/ptaak/sounds/Arnold_Schwarzenegger-i_give_up.wav
j...@3inthekey.com
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:09:12 -0600, the highly esteemed Miles O'Neal
> enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:
>
> >
> >> Listen, sensei, survival depends on not walking in front of a bus and
> >> eating right. Where do you get this stuff - have you memorized Star Wars
> >> or something?
> >
> > Awfully quick with the smart aleck response, there, Jim.
> >
> > May we safely conclude that neither you nor anyone you care about has ever
> > been raped, pistol-whipped, murdered, stabbed, etc?
>
> Typically, when someone a liberal knows gets shot, stabbed, or raped, the
> liberal in question then claims that we need to ban guns, knives, or dicks.
> You know, those are what did the shooting, stabbing, or raping, NOT the
> poor, impoverished, raised-in-a-broken-home perpetrator.
>
> Man, are you a clueless newb or what ;-)
I guess that is supposed to be a smile at the end of your insult, so
I'll hold my tongue.
j...@3inthekey.com
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:43:00 -0800, j...@3inthekey.com wrote:
>
> > Listen, sensei, survival depends on not walking in front of a bus and
> > eating right. Where do you get this stuff - have you memorized Star Wars
> > or something?
>
> Awfully quick with the smart aleck response,
> there, Jim.
>
> May we safely conclude that neither you nor
> anyone you care about has ever been raped,
> pistol-whipped, murdered, stabbed, etc?
>
>
No, you may not assume that.
Miles O'Neal
>> May we safely conclude that neither you nor anyone you care about has
>> ever been raped, pistol-whipped, murdered, stabbed, etc?
>>
>> -Miles, curious
>>
> No, you may not assume that.
I didn't say "assume", I said "conclude".
Are you saying such a conclusion
would be wrong?
-Miles
GBrycki
Was that meant for me? I'm not pissed at anyone.
>And frankly, I STILL don't care, about that perp buying the farm, in
>that article.
I noticed you avoided my question, tho...
Hey, don't get me wrong...I'm all for self-defense/defense of family & loved
ones, really!
>I should shed a tear for every criminal who bites the dust in the news
>media.
>
>Do you have tears running down your face every night watching the
>news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Right, you DON'T, because YOU don't care. You're as numb as the rest of
>us in front of your TV set with all the crime stories every night.
>
>Read all my posts in this thread.
Rich, I've read the posts, and I do care. However, I'm able to keep more then
one thought in my head, and I also realize there is more then one side to an
issue.
My point was this: You and several other gun-enthusiasts on this board (and
there's nothing wrong with being a gun-enthusiast) talk about stuff like this
with an almost child-like "cops-n-robbers/bang-you're-dead" glee. Of course a
person has a right to defend himself, and of course a person should defend
himself, but the point was...after having spoken to a person who actually DID
have to shoot someone...coming to grips with it afterwards can be a difficult
thing. Killing another human being...even justified...can fuck with a person's
head, badly and for a long time. Same thing happens sometimes with women who
have had abortions...it can sometimes fuck with their heads...because they
realize they've taken a human life.
>Note - The REAL issues here, are WHO Do You Trust to save your life,
>when crime knocks at your door!!!!!!!!!!
>
>911 or Colt.
Rich, I've always said, the only thing cops are good for in an instance like
this, is to draw the chalk outline around your corpse.
Anyhow...let's hope neither one of us ever have to make that kind of decision,
eh?
:)
G