0
Amazon

Another victim WITHOUT a gun.

Recommended Posts

Quote

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.



+1
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



+1



Just because YOU would sit there whining doesn't make it something worth betting on.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

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.


+1


Just because YOU would sit there whining doesn't make it something worth betting on.


Still will not offer any specifics huh:S

But then you seem to favor there being a large number of possible victims

Unless you have a specific solution you would care to share
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am more worried about the anti gun nutters who would only have criminal nutters with guns

The first nutters I post about here are much more dangerous over all
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.



Was this man stopped for any reason that would have given the police the legal chance to search him?
I agree that once a person sets their mind to do harm to another, there is little or nothing that can be done to stop them. Thus, it is up to each of us to protect ourselves. For some that means carrying a gun. 100% of unarmed people cannot defend themselves with a gun. 100% of those who carry a firearm have a chance. Individual situations determine what that chance will be.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

100% of unarmed people cannot defend themselves with a gun. 100% of those who carry a firearm have a chance. Individual situations determine what that chance will be.



And for the vast majority of people that carry a gun, they will never have a reason to use it in self defense to begin with let alone actually use it to defend themselves. Sure, there is the VERY rare case where somebody somewhere does and that's used as justification for the entire fear industry surrounding gun sales, but it's pretty much pure bullshit when you consider the enormous costs. You might as well take out a life insurance policy against getting struck by lightning. While it's true that some people at particularly high risk may find that an attractive proposition, for the vast majority of people it's simply a waste of time, money and energy.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

100% of unarmed people cannot defend themselves with a gun. 100% of those who carry a firearm have a chance. Individual situations determine what that chance will be.



And for the vast majority of people that carry a gun, they will never have a reason to use it in self defense to begin with let alone actually use it to defend themselves. Sure, there is the VERY rare case where somebody somewhere does and that's used as justification for the entire fear industry surrounding gun sales, but it's pretty much pure bullshit when you consider the enormous costs. You might as well take out a life insurance policy against getting struck by lightning. While it's true that some people at particularly high risk may find that an attractive proposition, for the vast majority of people it's simply a waste of time, money and energy.



Quote



What you post here is very true but, that is not really the point is it? At least most people have the choice as to whether or not they wish to (as you put it) " waste time, money and energy" today. But many do not want people to have the option to begin with. That is where the true debate lies, isnt it


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But many do not want people to have the option to begin with. That is where the true debate lies, isnt it



I don't think anybody wants anybody else to be completely defenseless. I know I don't. I've said time and again (although few people seem to have actually read it) that I support people being able to carry a defensive weapon under most circumstances.

I certainly think they're entitled to that in their own homes and I've never questioned that basic principle although I'll admit, I have questioned what is appropriate. Above a certain amount of firepower, I think it's just silly for gun advocates to press for more. It makes them sound nutty.

Where we get into fuzzy territory are places that are generally not considered appropriate by the vast majority of people; planes, trains, bars, amusement parks . . . you can see the sliding scale there. Almost nobody thinks it's appropriate for the general public to carry firearms in airplanes. Recently National Parks were opened up to firearms. I'm conflicted on that one, but really didn't have a huge issue with the way things had been handled for nearly 100 years. It simply wasn't an issue and when the rule was put in place it did cut down on the poaching. We'll see how it goes now.

What really bugs me though is the idea that everyone should be paranoid all the time. It's the subject of this thread. It's one of Amazon's driving motivators and I think it's unfounded. While SHE may have been a victim at one time and now is determined not to be one again, it's a little like hearing the newbie skydiver telling his office mates they also HAVE to go skydiving. No, they probably don't. In fact, most of them probably shouldn't.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been driving for over 30 years and have never had an accident. Does that mean I am wasting my money buying insurance?
I could buy one heck of a nice car with the money I've paid in premiums over the years.
A few hundred for a quality firearm that may, even if the chance is 1,000,000/1, just may save my life is a small fee in comparison.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What really bugs me though is the idea that everyone should be paranoid all the time.



Your paranoia is another person's readiness. Is it paranoia that causes a police officer to go around armed?
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



Using that logic perfessor we should stop commercial flights. Seems a few thousand were racked up that day.

Nutters will always be there. Let's assume for a second that no gun is available. He'd probably just give up and say the hell with it, right? We better start confiscating those ginsu knives, or that archery set at Dick's.

Doesn't make sense to me.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What really bugs me though is the idea that everyone should be paranoid all the time. It's the subject of this thread. It's one of Amazon's driving motivators and I think it's unfounded. While SHE may have been a victim at one time and now is determined not to be one again



I think you will find a LOT of people who have been victims that determine they will not be victims again. I would say many of them NEVER thought anything could happen to them... much like the newbie skydiver that has yet to realize their own mortality.

Untill you have walked in those shoes... you just don't have a clue.[:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It makes them sound nutty.



Why?

Quote

Where we get into fuzzy territory are places that are generally not considered appropriate by the vast majority of people; planes, trains, bars, amusement parks . . . you can see the sliding scale there. Almost nobody thinks it's appropriate for the general public to carry firearms in airplanes. Recently National Parks were opened up to firearms. I'm conflicted on that one, but really didn't have a huge issue with the way things had been handled for nearly 100 years. It simply wasn't an issue and when the rule was put in place it did cut down on the poaching. We'll see how it goes now.



We'll see.

Quote

What really bugs me though is the idea that everyone should be paranoid all the time.



Is that a hypothesis or just your opinion?

Quote

it's a little like hearing the newbie skydiver telling his office mates they also HAVE to go skydiving. No, they probably don't. In fact, most of them probably shouldn't.



I wish more would to increase positive popularity to our sport however, this translates to the self defense disscussion very little. My big thing is if she HAD a gun she would have at least HAD a chance (however minute). Further, if more LAW ABIDING CITEZENS could carry there would be far less of these type of crimes. My reasoning? If you wish to commit a crime where/when would you likely do it? If it were me I would go to a place where I KNEW noone could defend themselves or those they care about. What would I do if I knew any and every citizen was armed? I likely woudnt commit any sort of crime anywhere near there.

I say give the good guys (legal/law abiding gun owners) the right to protect themselves and others by making it publicly know that if you fuck up there may just be someone around that wont stand for that shit.
Muff #5048

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



Making the (rather large) assumption that they break some other law BEFORE they go 'ay in wait'.

Quote

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.



How's that working with the x million OTHER criminals?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Is it paranoia that causes a police officer to go around armed?

Nope, nor is it paranoia for a Cessna jump pilot to wear a parachute. But if you insist on wearing one on every commercial flight, it might be. (More likely that the person just thinks it's really fucking cool for people to know they're a skydiver, of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sure, there is the VERY rare case where somebody somewhere does and that's used as justification for the entire fear industry surrounding gun sales, but it's pretty much pure bullshit when you consider the enormous costs. You might as well take out a life insurance policy against getting struck by lightning.



Who knew that people get struck by lightning between 500k and 2.5 million times a year? At least, that's why you're implying, since various studies show that range of defensive gun uses.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


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.



'I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.'

No need to respond to a guy who thinks he knows the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Who knew that people get struck by lightning between 500k and
>2.5 million times a year?

Close; it's about 100K worldwide; about 10% of those result in death. Got your lightning-rod hat on?



How many in the States, since that's the region we're discussing.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have used the paranoia point before. How you feel you know people who carry are paranoid is beyond me. It is beyond you too I think

Guess I gotta think the paranoia is yours cause I dont see it the other way
Are there exceptions? Almost always. The rule? Gotta wonder

As others point out Quade, by your thinking having insurance is being paranoid. As is having a reserve chute.

Cause shit "might" happen

In the end?
Your paranoia is others preparedness.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

How you feel you know people who carry are paranoid is beyond me.



It's a lot easier to be objective about a subject if you're not emotionally involved with it.



And you are looking in a miror when you posted this, correct?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0