Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[Republica Newland]

I'm personally of the opinion that a person has the right to defend her home with equal or lesser force, and that if a person reasonably suspects her life to be in danger, that person is legally allowed to use lethal force.

Not sure if it has been noted, but the woman would also have been reasonable in a fear of rape. I'll provide a link to a sociological study that shows that rapes oftentimes accompany burglaries. The study was conducted in the 80s, and from a sample of over 100 convicted rapists, 39% committed rape during a robbery.

The study is a bit dated, and I'm not suggesting that the burglar was definitely going to rape the woman, especially since the woman was armed. But when a stranger breaks into the home, there are many unknowns. If nothing else, it is interesting food for thought.

She probably should have given a verbal warning before opening fire, but she was acting within the confines of the law. Georgia has stand-your-ground laws.

- Not to mention that the burglar had already been arrested 6 times since 2008 prior to this incident.His most recent crime had been battery. Hmm..

Oh but the lefties just go ahead and tell me he would have certainly acted peacefully.. Riiight.

[Republica Newland]

Here's a thought - a little scenario:
Everyone has guns.
Now.In the event that some retard does go batshit insane and starts shooting people - the situation all takes care of itself. Given that the majority of the US population are neither criminals nor mentally ill people - which is common sense.

That seriously depends on whether the bystanders you're referring to are actually trained to keep their heads in a fast-paced, high-stakes situation, can aim reasonably well at a moving target, and can coordinate quickly with each other to avoid a barrage of misdirected fire. If the answer is yes (as it would be with police, soldiers, or people with militia/home guard training) then you're right; if the answer is no then the aforementioned retard will probably die, but so will with ten or fifteen other people felled by stray bullets.

That seriously depends on whether the retard I am reffering to is actually trained to keep his head in a fast paced,high-stakes situation,can aim reasonably well at a moving targetmultiple moving targets,and can coordinate quickly with - oh wait,noone,nevermind we already agreed upon the fact that the majority of people are neither mentally insane nor criminals - to avoid a barrage of directed fire coming from multiple positions. If the answer is yes (as it would be with elite police, soldiers, or people with militia/home guard training),then I'm wrong ; if the answer is no,then the aforementioned retard will almost instantly be neutralized,too fast for him to do any damage,and certainly faster than any police response time.

[Polar Islandstates]

Not to mention, it seems rather hypocritical to depend on an armed officer to defend yourself instead of doing so yourself. What's the matter? Afraid of getting your own hands dirty?

I don't understand that. Why is that hypocritical? I don't like guns, no, why is it hypocritical to ask other people to operate them for me should I need them to? Whilst I'm at it, I'd rather ask other people to build my house, operate surgery on me, drive buses for me, transport shipping across the ocean... All things I could do given training, but don't fancy myself. Where is the hypocrisy in this situation?

[Republica Newland]

Not to mention, it seems rather hypocritical to depend on an armed officer to defend yourself instead of doing so yourself. What's the matter? Afraid of getting your own hands dirty?

I don't understand that. Why is that hypocritical? I don't like guns, no, why is it hypocritical to ask other people to operate them for me should I need them to? Whilst I'm at it, I'd rather ask other people to build my house, operate surgery on me, drive buses for me, transport shipping across the ocean... All things I could do given training, but don't fancy myself. Where is the hypocrisy in this situation?

There's no hypocrsy in that.But there is in trying to take away rights from people through gun prohibition or control.

[Polar Islandstates]

That seriously depends on whether the bystanders you're referring to are actually trained to keep their heads in a fast-paced, high-stakes situation, can aim reasonably well at a moving target, and can coordinate quickly with each other to avoid a barrage of misdirected fire. If the answer is yes (as it would be with police, soldiers, or people with militia/home guard training) then you're right; if the answer is no then the aforementioned retard will probably die, but so will with ten or fifteen other people felled by stray bullets.

That seriously depends on whether the retard I am reffering to is actually trained to keep his head in a fast paced,high-stakes situation,can aim reasonably well at a moving target,and can coordinate quickly with - oh wait,noone,nevermind we already agreed upon the fact that the majority of people are neither mentally insane nor criminals - to avoid a barrage of directed fire coming from multiple positions. If the answer is yes (as it would be with elite police, soldiers, or people with militia/home guard training),then I'm wrong ; if the answer is no,then the aforementioned retard will almost instantly be neutralized,too fast for him to do any damage,and certainly faster than any police response time.

Isn't this massively reliant on the assumption that said "retard going batshit insane" is worse at operating a gun than the gung-ho vigilantes coming to the rescue? Are good guys just inherently better with guns than bad guys, perhaps? That's the way things work out in movies, right?

[Zimmer Twins]

Guns don't save or take lives, people do...

My point exactly. I think it should be a week waiting period for guns, also an id check, background check, a license from the government, a common sense quiz, and finally you get your gun.

[Republica Newland]

That seriously depends on whether the retard I am reffering to is actually trained to keep his head in a fast paced,high-stakes situation,can aim reasonably well at a moving target,and can coordinate quickly with - oh wait,noone,nevermind we already agreed upon the fact that the majority of people are neither mentally insane nor criminals - to avoid a barrage of directed fire coming from multiple positions. If the answer is yes (as it would be with elite police, soldiers, or people with militia/home guard training),then I'm wrong ; if the answer is no,then the aforementioned retard will almost instantly be neutralized,too fast for him to do any damage,and certainly faster than any police response time.

Isn't this massively reliant on the assumption that said "retard going batshit insane" is worse at operating a gun than the gung-ho vigilantes coming to the rescue? Are good guys just inherently better with guns than bad guys, perhaps? That's the way things work out in movies, right?

No need to be better - there's strength in numbers. Remember that the scenario doesn't involve any vigilantes at all. Rather,the entire population is armed. There is no one intervening other than the people immediately endangered by said shooting.

L.E.: This is all completely reliant on the assumption that the majority of the US population is neither mentally insane nor criminals. Which is common sense.

[Kepplerburg]

Good riddance. A serial burglar gets ventilated and no innocents where harmed - I don't see how this could be anything but good news.

I don't support the United States' (in my opinion) overly generous gun-laws. I do, however, believe that a person should be in their full right to defend his or her home against trespassers - something I think we in Europe should try to emulate.

Peace Out.

/Kepplerburg

[Reichsland]

When you break into my home you have already proven that your intentions are bad, so I shouldnt have to ask, "oh hey there sir, you have obviously broken down my door by accident. Oh your going through my drawers to find some screws to hang it back up with. Your awful nice" *Flashes big grin* Robber: "Im here to take your stuff...Im gonna rape ya!" Me: Aha! I knew that thy intentions were not so neighborly. I must now defend myself, children, prepare my boomstick!

A person should have the right to defend themselves in their homes using whatever means they can.

[Jocabia]

What effects do they have that have no bearing on injury prevention and health? Despite your silly attempt at semantics, the term "injury" as used by the CDC obviously includes anything up to and including death.

And as you pointed out, owning arms is a right that the 2nd Amendment protected, not created. The wording the amendment is irrelevant to your point. Mass destruction is often the only way to resist a tyrannical regime. Who are you to tell me what means and methods I may use to attack a military base?



Sometimes, I can't tell if you're just pretending to be a Conservative as a joke. Because it's not possible that you don't know that's not an actual quote from George Washington. Do you have so much "respect" for George Washington's views on the matter that you'd lie about what he said?

You're right. Most gun owners aren't law-abiding. They're treasonous America haters. Thanks for making that clear.

Americans are treasonous American haters? Why because they believe in the Constitution and have this thought that maybe the govt should abide by it and just leave the people alone? When a govt fears its people it is freedom, when a people fear its govt it is tyranny.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Calling millions of law abiding weapon owning Americans treasonous, because they believe in their enumerated right to keep and bear arms is quite the statement of bigotry.

In what world can you wage war on a country and claim to love it simultaneously?

According to NM, they aren't law abiding people. If they were law-abiding, a law outlawing a particular gun would make them turn in said gun, not kill police officers and soldiers. And if they disagreed with that law, they would use legal channels to challenge that law, rather than killing officers and soldiers. According to NM, that is not what will happen. Apparently, millions of gun owners follow their own rules and whether or not they break the law is mere chance. If they wage war on the US, which NM said they will do, then that is treason, by definition. Do you have another definition?

[Jocabia]

The basic kernel of my argument is that no part of this story should have happened because A) she shouldn't have had a gun, and 2) she shouldn't have expected him to have a gun. My principal concern is that in these confrontations, self-defence should be the absolute, absolute last resort - after running, hiding, pleading, bargaining, after it truly has been brought down to a confrontation. After all efforts at de-escalating the confrontation have failed. And firearms, more often than not, escalate the conflict, and with lethal force. The notion of self-defence through bearing arms is an anachronism in a civilised society. The eradication of crime cannot, should not - and I suspect, will not - be achieved bullet by bullet.

In the hands of their legal owners,guns don't escalate conflicts,they neutralize them

Like it did with Treyvon Martin, right? He was certainly neutralized. Now, some might argue that there was no conflict other than the one caused by the "legal gun owner", but those people are rational, and who wants to deal with THOSE kind of people.

[Republica Newland]

In the hands of their legal owners,guns don't escalate conflicts,they neutralize them

Like it did with Treyvon Martin, right? He was certainly neutralized. Now, some might argue that there was no conflict other than the one caused by the "legal gun owner", but those people are rational, and who wants to deal with THOSE kind of people.

Case isnt' settled yet.I find it hard to believe that the neighbourhood watch guy shot him for no reason.

Oh,and on the subject: Some curious statistics show that the bulk of legal gun owners are neither criminals nor mentally insane.

[Jocabia]

Isn't this massively reliant on the assumption that said "retard going batshit insane" is worse at operating a gun than the gung-ho vigilantes coming to the rescue? Are good guys just inherently better with guns than bad guys, perhaps? That's the way things work out in movies, right?

No need to be better - there's strength in numbers. Remember that the scenario doesn't involve any vigilantes at all. Rather,the entire population is armed. There is no one intervening other than the people immediately endangered by said shooting.

L.E.: This is all completely reliant on the assumption that the majority of the US population is neither mentally insane nor criminals. Which is common sense.

This is factually untrue. When one gunman wants to hit anybody he can and doesn't have to worry about hitting other people or other things and the other gunman/gunmen have to be careful not to hit others or anything, the first gunman has the advantage. Your claims count on either the gunman caring if he hits anyone not shooting at him, or the counter-gunmen not caring about hitting each other or other people.

You ever heard the term circular firing squad? Do you know why people use this to indicate a clusterfuck?

[Jocabia]

Like it did with Treyvon Martin, right? He was certainly neutralized. Now, some might argue that there was no conflict other than the one caused by the "legal gun owner", but those people are rational, and who wants to deal with THOSE kind of people.

Case isnt' settled yet.I find it hard to believe that the neighbourhood watch guy shot him for no reason.

Oh,and on the subject: Some curious statistics show that the bulk of legal gun owners are neither criminals nor mentally insane.

It doesn't have to be no reason. It's a fact that Treyvon Martin was committing no crime and was not a threat to anyone until the gun owner escalated the situation. Prior to the armed man chasing him, there was nothing to neutralize.

And he was not neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watch people are directly and explicitly directed not to carry a firearm.

And the man who shot Treyvon Martin was neither a criminal nor insane. He was, however, extremely dangerous, as is proven by the fact that another person is dead as a result of his actions.

[Neo Mitanni]

What effects do they have that have no bearing on injury prevention and health? Despite your silly attempt at semantics, the term "injury" as used by the CDC obviously includes anything up to and including death.

And as you pointed out, owning arms is a right that the 2nd Amendment protected, not created. The wording the amendment is irrelevant to your point. Mass destruction is often the only way to resist a tyrannical regime. Who are you to tell me what means and methods I may use to attack a military base?



Sometimes, I can't tell if you're just pretending to be a Conservative as a joke. Because it's not possible that you don't know that's not an actual quote from George Washington. Do you have so much "respect" for George Washington's views on the matter that you'd lie about what he said?

You're right. Most gun owners aren't law-abiding. They're treasonous America haters. Thanks for making that clear.

Americans are treasonous American haters? Why because they believe in the Constitution and have this thought that maybe the govt should abide by it and just leave the people alone? When a govt fears its people it is freedom, when a people fear its govt it is tyranny.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Calling millions of law abiding weapon owning Americans treasonous, because they believe in their enumerated right to keep and bear arms is quite the statement of bigotry.

Indeed. As well as typical hysterical anti-gun hyperbole and ad hominem rage.

I will give the devil his due: the quote I cited, though widely disseminated, may in fact be apocryphal, or a paraphrase of other similar statements. One of the drawbacks of internet research rather than consultation of original printed publications. If so, I’d adopt it as my own anyway.

Maybe a few others will make similar points:

“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies.” George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress, January 8, 1790 (see http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/ ... cument=324 ). I agree that a disciplined militia is needed, btw.

“The laws of this nature [note: “false ideas of utility”, discussed in previous paragraph] are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons." -- 1809 translation of Italian text from "On Crimes and Punishment", by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764, Italian text quoted with approval in Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776 (see http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... squotation ). The full statement makes the case even more firmly.

And, returning to the OP, the highest authority of all: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.” Luke 11:21.

[Neo Mitanni]

Like it did with Treyvon Martin, right? He was certainly neutralized. Now, some might argue that there was no conflict other than the one caused by the "legal gun owner", but those people are rational, and who wants to deal with THOSE kind of people.

Case isnt' settled yet.I find it hard to believe that the neighbourhood watch guy shot him for no reason.

Oh,and on the subject: Some curious statistics show that the bulk of legal gun owners are neither criminals nor mentally insane.

Treyvon Martin, boo hoo hoo

Prediction: George Zimmerman will be exonerated, and a wanna-be G will be found to have gotten what he asked for.

End of thread derailment.

[Grinning Dragon]

Americans are treasonous American haters? Why because they believe in the Constitution and have this thought that maybe the govt should abide by it and just leave the people alone? When a govt fears its people it is freedom, when a people fear its govt it is tyranny.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Calling millions of law abiding weapon owning Americans treasonous, because they believe in their enumerated right to keep and bear arms is quite the statement of bigotry.

In what world can you wage war on a country and claim to love it simultaneously?

According to NM, they aren't law abiding people. If they were law-abiding, a law outlawing a particular gun would make them turn in said gun, not kill police officers and soldiers. And if they disagreed with that law, they would use legal channels to challenge that law, rather than killing officers and soldiers. According to NM, that is not what will happen. Apparently, millions of gun owners follow their own rules and whether or not they break the law is mere chance. If they wage war on the US, which NM said they will do, then that is treason, by definition. Do you have another definition?

Who in blazing saddles is NM? And why should I care about this opinion?

Where you may ask, the United States of America. Is it so hard to understand that people can love their country and the ideals in which it was built upon and yet have the ability to wage war against the very govt that becomes tyrannical and self serving to the point of enslaving its very people? It is not the country they are waging war against, it is a tyrannical govt in which they wage war against.

It is also spelled out quite eloquently here:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

[Paddy O Fernature]

Case isnt' settled yet.I find it hard to believe that the neighbourhood watch guy shot him for no reason.

Oh,and on the subject: Some curious statistics show that the bulk of legal gun owners are neither criminals nor mentally insane.

It doesn't have to be no reason. It's a fact that Treyvon Martin was committing no crime and was not a threat to anyone until the gun owner escalated the situation. Prior to the armed man chasing him, there was nothing to neutralize.

And he was not neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watch people are directly and explicitly directed not to carry a firearm.

And the man who shot Treyvon Martin was neither a criminal nor insane. He was, however, extremely dangerous, as is proven by the fact that another person is dead as a result of his actions.

I stopped reading when you said all the above was a fact. Really? Can I borrow your crystal ball for use on the lotto numbers?

[Republica Newland]

No need to be better - there's strength in numbers. Remember that the scenario doesn't involve any vigilantes at all. Rather,the entire population is armed. There is no one intervening other than the people immediately endangered by said shooting.

L.E.: This is all completely reliant on the assumption that the majority of the US population is neither mentally insane nor criminals. Which is common sense.

This is factually untrue. When one gunman wants to hit anybody he can and doesn't have to worry about hitting other people or other things and the other gunman/gunmen have to be careful not to hit others or anything, the first gunman has the advantage. Your claims count on either the gunman caring if he hits anyone not shooting at him, or the counter-gunmen not caring about hitting each other or other people.

You ever heard the term circular firing squad? Do you know why people use this to indicate a clusterfuck?

Shooting from behind cover (which is a reasonable thing to do and smth even an untrained individual will immediately turn to) pretty much eliminates this problem.I will let natural selection handle the idiots that can't figure that out on their own and be happy with that.

By the way your oh so loved Police ~that supposedly magically sorts everything out (and did I mention it has a .5 second response time) /sarcasm~ will come across that exact same problem as well.I'm gonna make a wild guess here and rely on the fact that regular people can coordinate themselves just as police officers can.

So yes assuming that crossfire is less likely to hit people than shots fired from a gun that is specifically aimed at someone I would gladly take the risk of accidental injury over the risk of intentional injury. After all,in wars for example,you have much more people killed by direct fire than crossfire,don't you? This is true as far as I know. Unless our troops kill more of our own than they do kill enemies

Also remember the fact that,in the scenario in which all of the people are armed and are willing to try and neutalize any nearby threats,this will all be over with very quickly. The more people there are in danger,the faster the threat is neutralized.That sounds really nice,doesn't it?

[Jocabia]

This is factually untrue. When one gunman wants to hit anybody he can and doesn't have to worry about hitting other people or other things and the other gunman/gunmen have to be careful not to hit others or anything, the first gunman has the advantage. Your claims count on either the gunman caring if he hits anyone not shooting at him, or the counter-gunmen not caring about hitting each other or other people.

You ever heard the term circular firing squad? Do you know why people use this to indicate a clusterfuck?

Shooting from behind cover (which is a reasonable thing to do and smth even an untrained individual will immediately turn to) pretty much eliminates this problem.I will let natural selection handle the idiots that can't figure that out on their own and be happy with that.

By the way your oh so loved Police ~that supposedly magically sorts everything out (and did I mention it has a .5 second response time) /sarcasm~ will come across that exact same problem as well.I'm gonna make a wild guess here and rely on the fact that regular people can coordinate themselves just as police officers can.

So yes assuming that crossfire is less likely to hit people than shots fired from a gun that is specifically aimed at someone I would gladly take the risk of accidental injury over the risk of intentional injury. After all,in wars for example,you have much more people killed by direct fire than crossfire,don't you? This is true as far as I know. Unless our troops kill more of our own than they do kill enemies

Also remember the fact that,in the scenario in which all of the people are armed and are willing to try and neutalize any nearby threats,this will all be over with very quickly. The more people there are in danger,the faster the threat is neutralized.That sounds really nice,doesn't it?

I would say you're right. Regular people can coordinate themselves as well as police as long as they have the same training, and are trained to work together. You have been trained to organize yourself with perfect strangers, have you not? Civilians walk around wearing a visible ranking system that makes it clear who is in charge in any given situation, yes? Clearly, there is little to no difference between unorganized civilians and organized police and soldiers. No difference at all. This is apparently true... well, unless you know anything about civilians, police officers and soldiers. So if I just forget how any kind of organized militia or armed force works, it's very hard to argue with your premise.

Last I checked, our enemies care whether they kill their own just like we do. Which makes it equal ground. Where we do not kill as many as them as they kill of us is when they stop caring about casualties. That's why terrorism and suicide bombers are so dangerous.

I know you want to believe that real traumatic experiences are these magical things where the cream rises to the top, but in reality, when crisis hits, victory goes to the people who are the calmest and to people who are the most prepared. When you strapped on your glock and left the house today did you run through the scenario where you'd go into a theater and be tear-gassed and shot at by an armored, masked and well-armed man? Because the armored, masked and well-armed man was prepared for exactly that situation because he planned it. He was calm because he didn't care if he died or injured others, so he had nothing to fear. You, of course, would be in a better situation than he, yes? Is your gas mask strapped next to your gun? When's the last time you were in the gas chamber? Certainly you have precisely the same training and readiness that the police or soldiers would have when they arrive, yes?

[Jocabia]

It doesn't have to be no reason. It's a fact that Treyvon Martin was committing no crime and was not a threat to anyone until the gun owner escalated the situation. Prior to the armed man chasing him, there was nothing to neutralize.

And he was not neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watch people are directly and explicitly directed not to carry a firearm.

And the man who shot Treyvon Martin was neither a criminal nor insane. He was, however, extremely dangerous, as is proven by the fact that another person is dead as a result of his actions.

I stopped reading when you said all the above was a fact. Really? Can I borrow your crystal ball for use on the lotto numbers?

I need a crystal ball? Even Zimmerman isn't claiming that Treyvon Martin was committing a crime when he began following him. Zimmerman wasn't sure of this at the time, but no one, including him, is claiming that Treyvon was actually criminally involved in any way at the time this situation began.

In this world, facts are based on evidence. Are you seriously claiming that ANYONE has ANY evidence that Treyvon Martin was committing a crime when Zimmerman started following him? If you are claiming that, who is the person you think has this evidence?

[Jocabia]

In what world can you wage war on a country and claim to love it simultaneously?

According to NM, they aren't law abiding people. If they were law-abiding, a law outlawing a particular gun would make them turn in said gun, not kill police officers and soldiers. And if they disagreed with that law, they would use legal channels to challenge that law, rather than killing officers and soldiers. According to NM, that is not what will happen. Apparently, millions of gun owners follow their own rules and whether or not they break the law is mere chance. If they wage war on the US, which NM said they will do, then that is treason, by definition. Do you have another definition?

Who in blazing saddles is NM? And why should I care about this opinion?

Where you may ask, the United States of America. Is it so hard to understand that people can love their country and the ideals in which it was built upon and yet have the ability to wage war against the very govt that becomes tyrannical and self serving to the point of enslaving its very people? It is not the country they are waging war against, it is a tyrannical govt in which they wage war against.

It is also spelled out quite eloquently here:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

And, there is no question, that it was treason. Our government was formed with safeguards against the need for violence. Our founders recognized that violence could again be necessary at some time, but they certainly didn't suggest that we ignore legal channels in order to more quickly enter into war against the country they founded. Our founders gave you means to alter our government through peaceful means specifically to that end. If you choose to ignore them, you can claim you're on the side of right (you'll be wrong, but let's not quibble), but you certainly cannot claim that it's law-abiding or that it's not treasonous. And certainly, in the intentional effort to ignore the law and the legal and peaceful means by which you may rectify injury, and rather make an effort to abolish the very nation, you certainly can claim that it's out of love of yourself or out of love of the principles for which you fight, but it certainly cannot be claimed to be love for the nation you seek to destroy.

As far as who is NM, I suppose when entering a conversation, you don't actually pay attention to the thread of that conversation. That seems a pretty good recipe for saying things that are ignorant as to the topic, point and context of the conversation, as evidenced here.

[Republica Newland]

Shooting from behind cover (which is a reasonable thing to do and smth even an untrained individual will immediately turn to) pretty much eliminates this problem.I will let natural selection handle the idiots that can't figure that out on their own and be happy with that.

By the way your oh so loved Police ~that supposedly magically sorts everything out (and did I mention it has a .5 second response time) /sarcasm~ will come across that exact same problem as well.I'm gonna make a wild guess here and rely on the fact that regular people can coordinate themselves just as police officers can.

So yes assuming that crossfire is less likely to hit people than shots fired from a gun that is specifically aimed at someone I would gladly take the risk of accidental injury over the risk of intentional injury. After all,in wars for example,you have much more people killed by direct fire than crossfire,don't you? This is true as far as I know. Unless our troops kill more of our own than they do kill enemies

Also remember the fact that,in the scenario in which all of the people are armed and are willing to try and neutalize any nearby threats,this will all be over with very quickly. The more people there are in danger,the faster the threat is neutralized.That sounds really nice,doesn't it?

I would say you're right. Regular people can coordinate themselves as well as police as long as they have the same training, and are trained to work together. You have been trained to organize yourself with perfect strangers, have you not? Civilians walk around wearing a visible ranking system that makes it clear who is in charge in any given situation, yes? Clearly, there is little to no difference between unorganized civilians and organized police and soldiers. No difference at all. This is apparently true... well, unless you know anything about civilians, police officers and soldiers. So if I just forget how any kind of organized militia or armed force works, it's very hard to argue with your premise.

Last I checked, our enemies care whether they kill their own just like we do. Which makes it equal ground. Where we do not kill as many as them as they kill of us is when they stop caring about casualties. That's why terrorism and suicide bombers are so dangerous.

I know you want to believe that real traumatic experiences are these magical things where the cream rises to the top, but in reality, when crisis hits, victory goes to the people who are the calmest and to people who are the most prepared. When you strapped on your glock and left the house today did you run through the scenario where you'd go into a theater and be tear-gassed and shot at by an armored, masked and well-armed man? Because the armored, masked and well-armed man was prepared for exactly that situation because he planned it. He was calm because he didn't care if he died or injured others, so he had nothing to fear. You, of course, would be in a better situation than he, yes? Is your gas mask strapped next to your gun? When's the last time you were in the gas chamber? Certainly you have precisely the same training and readiness that the police or soldiers would have when they arrive, yes?

I hope you're seriously joking right now.Police is dead meat to an armored,masked and well-armed man.Go and watch the documentary on the Holywood Shooting.Apparently you want to believe that policemen are some sort of invincible,SEAL-like equipped,SAS-like trained superhumans that can magically make everything go away.Oh and by the way guess what in the "outrageously gun control-less US of A" tear gas is illegal to own duh.
"When they arrive",the first responders will be dead meat as I have already said.By the time SWAT arrives everyone in the theater would be dead if the guy wanted to.And even then one or two SWAT might get killed before he goes down.

So me,with my "shit ass training and poor ass Glock" could have easily put a bullet in his head by the time the tear gas would start to kick in.And no they don't make face armour unless he is dressed in a fucking bomb suit.

L.E.: Now talking about real,common scenarios: Take away all radio communications and fancy training from a group of people intervening in an incident and the risk of intentional harm or death from the side of the gunman would still outweigh by shitloads the risk of accidental harm posed by crossfire.

[Jocabia]

I would say you're right. Regular people can coordinate themselves as well as police as long as they have the same training, and are trained to work together. You have been trained to organize yourself with perfect strangers, have you not? Civilians walk around wearing a visible ranking system that makes it clear who is in charge in any given situation, yes? Clearly, there is little to no difference between unorganized civilians and organized police and soldiers. No difference at all. This is apparently true... well, unless you know anything about civilians, police officers and soldiers. So if I just forget how any kind of organized militia or armed force works, it's very hard to argue with your premise.

Last I checked, our enemies care whether they kill their own just like we do. Which makes it equal ground. Where we do not kill as many as them as they kill of us is when they stop caring about casualties. That's why terrorism and suicide bombers are so dangerous.

I know you want to believe that real traumatic experiences are these magical things where the cream rises to the top, but in reality, when crisis hits, victory goes to the people who are the calmest and to people who are the most prepared. When you strapped on your glock and left the house today did you run through the scenario where you'd go into a theater and be tear-gassed and shot at by an armored, masked and well-armed man? Because the armored, masked and well-armed man was prepared for exactly that situation because he planned it. He was calm because he didn't care if he died or injured others, so he had nothing to fear. You, of course, would be in a better situation than he, yes? Is your gas mask strapped next to your gun? When's the last time you were in the gas chamber? Certainly you have precisely the same training and readiness that the police or soldiers would have when they arrive, yes?

I hope you're seriously joking right now.Police is dead meat to an armored,masked and well-armed man.Go and watch the documentary on the Holywood Shooting.Apparently you want to believe that policemen are some sort of invincible,SEAL-like equipped,SAS-like trained superhumans that can magically make everything go away.Oh and by the way guess what in the "outrageously gun control-less US of A" tear gas is illegal to own duh.
"When they arrive",the first responders will be dead meat as I have already said.By the time SWAT arrives everyone in the theater would be dead if the guy wanted to.And even then one or two SWAT might get killed before he goes down.

So me,with my "shit ass training and poor ass Glock" could have easily put a bullet in his head by the time the tear gas would start to kick in.And no they don't make face armour unless he is dressed in a fucking bomb suit.

Ok, here's what I'd like you to do.

Sit down. Lean back in your chair. Close your eyes. Take a deep breath through your nose. Let it out completely through your mouth. Be sure to engage your diaphragm. Repeat this breathing 10 times. Calm, now?

Okay, now, reread my post again. Who said anything about the police being particularly special? I didn't. You act like be untrained is somehow superior to being well-trained. Police training is designed to deal with people who are armed and who are dangerous. The training is consistent among officers and they've been trained to work together. This doesn't make them invincible. It does make them necessarily in a better position than a bunch of people who have never met and who have no idea who among them is trained or untrained, armed or unarmed, and aggressive toward them or not aggressive toward them. By the nature of the situation, police and soldiers have an advantage over civilians. By the nature of the situation, the armed criminal has an advantage over all of them.

And by the nature of just completely making things up, the ITG has an advantage over them all, because he knows when people will and will not choose to flee or try to escape, he knows how to dodge bullets like Neo, he anticipates every threat and is easily prepared for them, and he's never misses with his bad-guy seeking bullets. Why station guards at schools? Why bother training soldiers? Why have police? All we need is one ITG, because he can take down any threat without harming even one civilian. Now, of course, we've never seen the elusive ITG in action, but we can trust, that when we do, it will be more magical than Jesus infused with the powers of Gandalf.

Or, we can exist in the real world, where a person who thinks that civilian casualties in a crowded theater are not a likelihood is too dangerous to carry a weapon.

[Republica Newland]

I hope you're seriously joking right now.Police is dead meat to an armored,masked and well-armed man.Go and watch the documentary on the Holywood Shooting.Apparently you want to believe that policemen are some sort of invincible,SEAL-like equipped,SAS-like trained superhumans that can magically make everything go away.Oh and by the way guess what in the "outrageously gun control-less US of A" tear gas is illegal to own duh.
"When they arrive",the first responders will be dead meat as I have already said.By the time SWAT arrives everyone in the theater would be dead if the guy wanted to.And even then one or two SWAT might get killed before he goes down.

So me,with my "shit ass training and poor ass Glock" could have easily put a bullet in his head by the time the tear gas would start to kick in.And no they don't make face armour unless he is dressed in a fucking bomb suit.

Ok, here's what I'd like you to do.

Sit down. Lean back in your chair. Close your eyes. Take a deep breath through your nose. Let it out completely through your mouth. Be sure to engage your diaphragm. Repeat this breathing 10 times. Calm, now?

Okay, now, reread my post again. Who said anything about the police being particularly special? I didn't. You act like be untrained is somehow superior to being well-trained. Police training is designed to deal with people who are armed and who are dangerous. The training is consistent among officers and they've been trained to work together. This doesn't make them invincible. It does make them necessarily in a better position than a bunch of people who have never met and who have no idea who among them is trained or untrained, armed or unarmed, and aggressive toward them or not aggressive toward them. By the nature of the situation, police and soldiers have an advantage over civilians. By the nature of the situation, the armed criminal has an advantage over all of them.

And by the nature of just completely making things up, the ITG has an advantage over them all, because he knows when people will and will not choose to flee or try to escape, he knows how to dodge bullets like Neo, he anticipates every threat and is easily prepared for them, and he's never misses with his bad-guy seeking bullets. Why station guards at schools? Why bother training soldiers? Why have police? All we need is one ITG, because he can take down any threat without harming even one civilian. Now, of course, we've never seen the elusive ITG in action, but we can trust, that when we do, it will be more magical than Jesus infused with the powers of Gandalf.

Or, we can exist in the real world, where a person who thinks that civilian casualties in a crowded theater are not a likelihood is too dangerous to carry a weapon.

Or, we can exist in the real world,where : "By the nature of the situation, the armed criminal has an advantage over all of them. " - being unarmed,the gun-less civilian has a disadvantage over him.