Another victim WITHOUT a gun.

[Amazon 7]

Face it the LAW and restraining/anti-harrasment orders do not work no matter HOW much you would like to pretend.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/22681951/detail.html

TACOMA, Wash. -- A gunman with an infatuation with a Tacoma special education teacher lay in wait and fatally shot the woman as she arrived for school Friday morning, authorities told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News. Police later fatally shot the gunman after a chase and confrontation about 10 miles away.

Police said the victim, 30-year-old Jennifer Paulson, had an anti-harassment order against the 30-year-old gunman, Jed Waits, of Ellensburg.

"They weren't a couple," said Mark Fulghum of the Tacoma Police Department. "It sounds like they were acquaintances. He had a pretty good infatuation with her -- that's probably the reason for the anti harassment order that was in effect."

In court documents obtained by KIRO 7 Eyewitness News, Paulson called the man a "stalker" and wrote that she was "afraid for her safety."

[diablopilot 2]

Yeah, but a harassment order fits more comfortably in an IWB holster and won't turn grade school children into homicidal maniacs at the mere sight of it.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[quade 4]

"lay in wait and fatally shot the woman as she arrived"

You're assuming she could have done anything about it. Pretty big assumption. I'm fairly certain if I were to "lay in wait" to kill somebody (ambush them), they'd have no chance whatsoever to use their gun.

In this particular case I think it's actually a much stronger argument for tighter gun control over those that have restraining orders placed on them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

"lay in wait and fatally shot the woman as she arrived"

You're assuming she could have done anything about it. Pretty big assumption.

and to be fair, you're assuming she couldn't have.

do you know the circumstances of the shooting? Other than him waiting for her?

I didn't see anything in the article. Unless you have other info you're not sharing, it's pure conjecture to say she'd have been unable to do anything about it.

--
Rob

[quade 4]

Just think for two seconds. You've brought a gun and are waiting to kill somebody as they arrive at a location you know they'll be at. You "lay in wait" so you can kill them. What chance do you give them? Any? Get real.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Just think for two seconds. You've brought a gun and are waiting to kill somebody as they arrive at a location you know they'll be at. You "lay in wait" so you can kill them. What chance do you give them? Any? Get real.

was he waiting to kill her? what was his purpose?? do you have that information? or are you making assumptions.

perhaps he was waiting to talk to her. She told him to fuck off, and he got pissed told her to "get real" and shot her.

--
Rob

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Just think for two seconds. You've brought a gun and are waiting to kill somebody as they arrive at a location you know they'll be at. You "lay in wait" so you can kill them. What chance do you give them? Any? Get real.

It might go something like this:

http://cheserver.ent.ohiou.edu/werc/2003%20tombstone%20gunfight%20cartoon.jpg

[quade 4]

Quote

was he waiting to kill her? what was his purpose??

"Lay in wait" was quoted from the article.

Let's assume there is a 50/50 chance the article is correct. In one case, there is absolutely NOTHING her being armed would have done to prevent her being shot. In the other case, there is a chance she might have prevented it.

It's absolutely not a good argument for being armed. Like I said previously, it's a much better argument for stricter gun control on those with restraining orders against them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,106]

Fixed your title.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

was he waiting to kill her? what was his purpose??

"Lay in wait" was quoted from the article.

Let's assume there is a 50/50 chance the article is correct.

in context "... lay in wait and fatally shot ..." Not 'lay in wait to shoot', not 'with intention to shoot'.

Quote

In one case, there is absolutely NOTHING her being armed would have done to prevent her being shot.

if she didn't know it was coming, then I agree. her being armed would have not made this situation any better or worse.

Quote

In the other case, there is a chance she might have prevented it.

In that case, she would have had a chance to defend herself. Yes. That's a chance.

Quote

It's absolutely not a good argument for being armed.

so you'd rather take that chance away from her? Cold man... cold...

*** Like I said previously, it's a much better argument for stricter gun control on those with restraining orders against them.

you mean someone with a restraining order in washington state shouldn't be able to possess a firearm?

ok. So why should that have any effect on whether or not anyone else should be armed?

you choose not to arm yourself. I'm ok with that. You seem to think that nobody else should either. That's out of line.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Let's assume there is a 50/50 chance the article is correct. In one case, there is absolutely NOTHING her being armed would have done to prevent her being shot. In the other case, there is a chance she might have prevented it.

You continue to suffer from the incorrect belief that a victim cannot do anything once the perp fires the first shot. In addition to the 20-30k people killed (either by assault or suicide), another 70k survive being shot. They survive more often if they can defend themselves after the first shot. Otherwise the stalker can fire more rounds.

Lay in wait does not translate to "shot her in the back of the head without her knowing it's coming." It merely means waiting for the victim to come to a known location and then confronting/attacking. If the victim had a gun, her odds improve immensely from having nothing.

(At least this isn't a case of someone being killed while waiting for the gun purchase to clear X days)

[quade 4]

"You continue to suffer from the incorrect belief that a victim cannot do anything once the perp fires the first shot."

Four dead police officers tell me differently.

Lemme ask you, do you consider yourself to be a gun expert? If so, do you think you could "lay in wait" and get off a kill shot before somebody else would be able to return fire?

I don't claim to be a gun expert, but I know that if I were determined to kill somebody, there would be nothing they could do about it. Not a damn thing. It wouldn't matter one single bit how armed they were.

Ronald Reagan was being protected by one of the most highly trained and armed security forces on the planet, yet it's only because Hinkley ran out of bullets that he stopped firing and it's only because Hinkley was a poor shot that Reagan lived.

Explain that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

was he waiting to kill her? what was his purpose??

"Lay in wait" was quoted from the article.

Let's assume there is a 50/50 chance the article is correct. In one case, there is absolutely NOTHING her being armed would have done to prevent her being shot. In the other case, there is a chance she might have prevented it.

It's absolutely not a good argument for being armed. Like I said previously, it's a much better argument for stricter gun control on those with restraining orders against them.

WTF??? The man broke several laws including violating a anti-harassment order, laws against assault and murder, etc. To think he would have obeyed a law prohibiting him from possessing a firearm is naivety at it's greatest.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Fixed your title.

So when are you giving up the Mooney?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

was he waiting to kill her? what was his purpose??

"Lay in wait" was quoted from the article.

Let's assume there is a 50/50 chance the article is correct. In one case, there is absolutely NOTHING her being armed would have done to prevent her being shot. In the other case, there is a chance she might have prevented it.

It's absolutely not a good argument for being armed. Like I said previously, it's a much better argument for stricter gun control on those with restraining orders against them.

WTF??? The man broke several laws including violating a anti-harassment order, laws against assault and murder, etc. To think he would have obeyed a law prohibiting him from possessing a firearm is naivety at it's greatest.

You've missed the point. It would enable the police to arrest a person like him if they found one in their possession. It would give the police another tool to use to stop people like that.

I think we all agree there is nothing to stop the person once they "lay in wait", the point is to stop them before they can do that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In this particular case I think it's actually a much stronger argument for tighter gun control over those that have restraining orders placed on them.

Because gun control stops people from acquiring guns?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Just think for two seconds. You've brought a gun and are waiting to kill somebody as they arrive at a location you know they'll be at. You "lay in wait" so you can kill them. What chance do you give them? Any? Get real.

Just think yourself.... I would BET that he sat there whining about his LOVE...I know if I saw my stalker.. my hand would be on my purse gun and it would be aimed at him.. if he flinched... it gonna cut loose.. and I think the .44 Mag can do a VERY good job of shooting thru the purse. So "get real".....at least she might have had a chance rather than believing in our vaunted "system". Men like this prey on weak women.. they get off on it... they need to be put down.....HARD.

If you want to be a nice compliant victim... more power to you.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

was he waiting to kill her? what was his purpose??

"Lay in wait" was quoted from the article.

Let's assume there is a 50/50 chance the article is correct. In one case, there is absolutely NOTHING her being armed would have done to prevent her being shot. In the other case, there is a chance she might have prevented it.

It's absolutely not a good argument for being armed. Like I said previously, it's a much better argument for stricter gun control on those with restraining orders against them.

WTF??? The man broke several laws including violating a anti-harassment order, laws against assault and murder, etc. To think he would have obeyed a law prohibiting him from possessing a firearm is naivety at it's greatest.

You've missed the point. It would enable the police to arrest a person like him if they found one in their possession. It would give the police another tool to use to stop people like that.

I think we all agree there is nothing to stop the person once they "lay in wait", the point is to stop them before they can do that.

And how are the police to know he has the gun? Or should they be allowed to stop you to "check your papers please".

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Fixed your title.

So when are you giving up the Mooney?

When 9,000 or more homicides per year are committed with Mooneys I expect Mooneys will be banned.

I do not believe that ANY homicide has ever been committed with a Mooney, however, so your darkest fears are unwarranted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Jeff McVeigh, mass murderer, was arrested for having an illegal gun while his documents were being checked after a routine traffic stop.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Just think yourself.... I would BET that he sat there whining about his LOVE...

I BET the 4 armed cops in Tacoma never thought they would be shot dead by a nutter.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diablopilot 2]

And many IRS employees never thought their lives would be threatened with a nutter in a Piper.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Just think yourself.... I would BET that he sat there whining about his LOVE...

I BET the 4 armed cops in Tacoma never thought they would be shot dead by a nutter.

See where over confidence gets you... like NO ONE would dare go after them.... I realize there probably is a nutter out there that might wish to harm me.... I plan on harming him first... and practice towards that end. I may not succeed..but at least I will give myself the best chance to survive. It would be rude not to

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

And many IRS employees never thought their lives would be threatened with a nutter in a Piper.

When the number reaches thousands each year you will have a point. At the moment homicides with Pipers rank somewhat below homicides with down filled pillows.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

In this particular case I think it's actually a much stronger argument for tighter gun control over those that have restraining orders placed on them.

Because gun control stops people from acquiring guns?

Not the way it's implemented in the USA it doesn't. And THAT is the PROBLEM.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.