Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[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.

You really can't get in that tight little nutshell of yours that initial reaction by a group of shit armed,shit trained civilians + police intervention is better than no initial reaction + police intervention,can you?

[Jocabia]

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.

You really can't get in that tight little nutshell of yours that initial reaction by a group of shit armed,shit trained civilians + police intervention is better than no initial reaction + police intervention,can you?

No, it isn't. Because untrained people shooting in a crowd is a bad thing. Only someone completely untrained would think that shooting in a crowd is a good idea. This actually tends to be one of the first lessons of gun training.

[Jocabia]

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.

Armed or unarmed the gun-less civilian is at a disadvantage. The likelihood of getting shot increases with the number of bullets flying. This becomes even more true when those bullets are coming from the guns of people who are untrained and who do not understand the danger they and those around them are in.

There is a reason that a SWAT team that comes upon a situation with an armed man and civilians doesn't just open fire immediately.

[Tyramithul]

Seams like quite the heroic woman if you ask me. Who knows what could've happened if she wasn't armed. You could hope that the robber would freak out and run, but he could just as well murdered them all to cower up his identity, with a bit of rape thrown in for the hell of it. I think everyone should own a firearm to be able to defend themselves, their family and property. I don't understand why anyone would gamble with being unprotected, or counting on police that takes some 5-15 (or more) minutes to react.

[Jocabia]

Seams like quite the heroic woman if you ask me. Who knows what could've happened if she wasn't armed. You could hope that the robber would freak out and run, but he could just as well murdered them all to cower up his identity, with a bit of rape thrown in for the hell of it. I think everyone should own a firearm to be able to defend themselves, their family and property. I don't understand why anyone would gamble with being unprotected, or counting on police that takes some 5-15 (or more) minutes to react.

Actually, the police suggested that he originally planned to rob another house but when confronted by the owner fled.

I'm not someone who faults the woman for feeling this was a life or death situation, but now that we can calmly assess the situation, it's extremely likely that simply confronting the man would have caused him to flee just as in the previous situation. It's also utterly clear that he was no longer a danger and begged her to stop shooting before she did.

[Republica Newland]

You really can't get in that tight little nutshell of yours that initial reaction by a group of shit armed,shit trained civilians + police intervention is better than no initial reaction + police intervention,can you?

No, it isn't. Because untrained people shooting in a crowd is a bad thing. Only someone completely untrained would think that shooting in a crowd is a good idea. This actually tends to be one of the first lessons of gun training.

Why would they shoot in a crowd? Are you implying this criminal is inside a crowd of people and he starts spinning around firing at people??! I have already talked about of all this in my post.But apparently you didn't take the time to read it.

And why do you keep on assuming that the criminal is always trained? Do you realize that the bulk of them aren't?

OK - how about giving this one a go - before any civilian can buy a weapon you give him a 30 minute course that serves the purpose of delivering this very simple message: Do not shoot a criminal unless there is no one in front of him/behind him +- X number of feet. Given that the civilians get the point and act accordingly this will virtually eliminate almost every case of crossfire.

[Republica Newland]

Seams like quite the heroic woman if you ask me. Who knows what could've happened if she wasn't armed. You could hope that the robber would freak out and run, but he could just as well murdered them all to cower up his identity, with a bit of rape thrown in for the hell of it. I think everyone should own a firearm to be able to defend themselves, their family and property. I don't understand why anyone would gamble with being unprotected, or counting on police that takes some 5-15 (or more) minutes to react.

Actually, the police suggested that he originally planned to rob another house but when confronted by the owner fled.

I'm not someone who faults the woman for feeling this was a life or death situation, but now that we can calmly assess the situation, it's extremely likely that simply confronting the man would have caused him to flee just as in the previous situation. It's also utterly clear that he was no longer a danger and begged her to stop shooting before she did.

*after she did.
Are you aware of the fact that prior to the incident on hand,the man had already been arrested 6 times since 2008? His latest was a battery.

[Iron Commune]

This women did not just save her own life but the lives of many others if he had just stole a few things and took off without finding her he could already be out seeking a new house to rob and the next time they might not have guns making them easy target for his known habit of assault and possibly worse.

Or the other way if she had confronted him maybe he would have run off found another house to rob and maybe that time they are unarmed so when he knocks down the door there is no one to shoot him down when he happens upon them with his crowbar.

We are playing what if here so i thought i would share some likely what ifs.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Seams like quite the heroic woman if you ask me. Who knows what could've happened if she wasn't armed. You could hope that the robber would freak out and run, but he could just as well murdered them all to cower up his identity, with a bit of rape thrown in for the hell of it. I think everyone should own a firearm to be able to defend themselves, their family and property. I don't understand why anyone would gamble with being unprotected, or counting on police that takes some 5-15 (or more) minutes to react.

Actually, the police suggested that he originally planned to rob another house but when confronted by the owner fled.

I'm not someone who faults the woman for feeling this was a life or death situation, but now that we can calmly assess the situation, it's extremely likely that simply confronting the man would have caused him to flee just as in the previous situation. It's also utterly clear that he was no longer a danger and begged her to stop shooting before she did.

Bullshit.

[Jocabia]

Actually, the police suggested that he originally planned to rob another house but when confronted by the owner fled.

I'm not someone who faults the woman for feeling this was a life or death situation, but now that we can calmly assess the situation, it's extremely likely that simply confronting the man would have caused him to flee just as in the previous situation. It's also utterly clear that he was no longer a danger and begged her to stop shooting before she did.

*after she did.
Are you aware of the fact that prior to the incident on hand,the man had already been arrested 6 times since 2008? His latest was a battery.

I am. I looked at each of his arrests. Who did he batter? Was it during a break-in? Otherwise the relevance of that previous charge is not even in the ballpark of the relevance that just before he'd been confronted and fled with no bloodshed or violence of any kind.

And I said what I meant. He begged her to stop before she actually stopped. "[He} begged her to stop shooting before she did [stop]."

[Jocabia]

Actually, the police suggested that he originally planned to rob another house but when confronted by the owner fled.

I'm not someone who faults the woman for feeling this was a life or death situation, but now that we can calmly assess the situation, it's extremely likely that simply confronting the man would have caused him to flee just as in the previous situation. It's also utterly clear that he was no longer a danger and begged her to stop shooting before she did.

Bullshit.

He didn't beg her to stop? Or he was no longer a danger? He laid on the floor when she was out of bullets. She was in more danger then than if she'd stopped one bullet shy. But he still laid on the floor on his face and remained there. There is no indication that one less bullet fired would have made him any less inclined to follow her commands and the fact that he begged her to stop is evidence that he was ready to follow her commands, thus no longer a danger. The goal of using a firearm, if you actually give even a little shit about human life, is to use the minimal amount of force necessary. In her case, with what she knew, I believe it's unreasonable to expect her to not have fired. It is not, however, unfair to suggest she could have and probably should have fired less, given what she knew, and still gotten the desired outcome, which was the safety of her children and herself.

Now say "bullshit" again and I will be properly and truly whipped.

[Republica Newland]

*after she did.
Are you aware of the fact that prior to the incident on hand,the man had already been arrested 6 times since 2008? His latest was a battery.

I am. I looked at each of his arrests. Who did he batter? Was it during a break-in? Otherwise the relevance of that previous charge is not even in the ballpark of the relevance that just before he'd been confronted and fled with no bloodshed or violence of any kind.

And I said what I meant. He begged her to stop before she actually stopped. "[He} begged her to stop shooting before she did [stop]."

You still have failed to respond to this:
"
Why would they shoot in a crowd? Are you implying this criminal is inside a crowd of people and he starts spinning around firing at people??! I have already talked about of all this in my post.But apparently you didn't take the time to read it.

And why do you keep on assuming that the criminal is always trained? Do you realize that the bulk of them aren't?

OK - how about giving this one a go - before any civilian can buy a weapon you give him a 30 minute course that serves the purpose of delivering this very simple message: Do not shoot a criminal unless there is no one in front of him/behind him +- X number of feet. Given that the civilians get the point and act accordingly this will virtually eliminate almost every case of crossfire."

[Republica Newland]

Bullshit.

He didn't beg her to stop? Or he was no longer a danger? He laid on the floor when she was out of bullets. She was in more danger then than if she'd stopped one bullet shy. But he still laid on the floor on his face and remained there. There is no indication that one less bullet fired would have made him any less inclined to follow her commands and the fact that he begged her to stop is evidence that he was ready to follow her commands, thus no longer a danger. The goal of using a firearm, if you actually give even a little shit about human life, is to use the minimal amount of force necessary. In her case, with what she knew, I believe it's unreasonable to expect her to not have fired. It is not, however, unfair to suggest she could have and probably should have fired less, given what she knew, and still gotten the desired outcome, which was the safety of her children and herself.

Now say "bullshit" again and I will be properly and truly whipped.

Welcome to the real world.This is a prime example of a ~panicked and terrified person~.

[Jocabia]

I am. I looked at each of his arrests. Who did he batter? Was it during a break-in? Otherwise the relevance of that previous charge is not even in the ballpark of the relevance that just before he'd been confronted and fled with no bloodshed or violence of any kind.

And I said what I meant. He begged her to stop before she actually stopped. "[He} begged her to stop shooting before she did [stop]."

You still have failed to respond to this:
"
Why would they shoot in a crowd? Are you implying this criminal is inside a crowd of people and he starts spinning around firing at people??! I have already talked about of all this in my post.But apparently you didn't take the time to read it.

And why do you keep on assuming that the criminal is always trained? Do you realize that the bulk of them aren't?

OK - how about giving this one a go - before any civilian can buy a weapon you give him a 30 minute course that serves the purpose of delivering this very simple message: Do not shoot a criminal unless there is no one in front of him/behind him +- X number of feet. Given that the civilians get the point and act accordingly this will virtually eliminate almost every case of crossfire."

It varies on the situation. In the case of Aurora, CO, everyone but the shooter was in a crowd, but shooting through a crowd is just as dangerous.

In which case, you'd not have shot him in the face as you claimed originally. Because there were lots of people within the relevant distance. Not to mention the fact, that they don't say it like that. It's obviously relevant how many people are between you and him.

I never assumed the criminal is always trained. I said they have the advantage, because these kinds of shootings are planned. They are. The Aurora shooting was thoroughly planned and pretty well executed. Probably because no ITG's were available to fire their magic civilian-missing bullets.

[Jocabia]

He didn't beg her to stop? Or he was no longer a danger? He laid on the floor when she was out of bullets. She was in more danger then than if she'd stopped one bullet shy. But he still laid on the floor on his face and remained there. There is no indication that one less bullet fired would have made him any less inclined to follow her commands and the fact that he begged her to stop is evidence that he was ready to follow her commands, thus no longer a danger. The goal of using a firearm, if you actually give even a little shit about human life, is to use the minimal amount of force necessary. In her case, with what she knew, I believe it's unreasonable to expect her to not have fired. It is not, however, unfair to suggest she could have and probably should have fired less, given what she knew, and still gotten the desired outcome, which was the safety of her children and herself.

Now say "bullshit" again and I will be properly and truly whipped.

Welcome to the real world.This is a prime example of a ~panicked and terrified person~.

What? Panicked people act differently than people who are prepared for the situation and unafraid? Who knew? It's almost like I said specifically that. I wasn't faulting her. I was merely stating that if she'd been more calm she would have saved a bullet or two and gotten the same outcome. It doesn't make her a murderer or attempted murderer (two words I never used to describe her). It just makes it a mistake.

[Republica Newland]

Welcome to the real world.This is a prime example of a ~panicked and terrified person~.

What? Panicked people act differently than people who are prepared for the situation and unafraid? Who knew? It's almost like I said specifically that. I wasn't faulting her. I was merely stating that if she'd been more calm she would have saved a bullet or two and gotten the same outcome. It doesn't make her a murderer or attempted murderer (two words I never used to describe her). It just makes it a mistake.

"What? Panicked people act differently than people who are prepared for the situation and unafraid? Who knew?" Yep.They sure do.And also 5 to 10 minutes+ faster.
*Oh and note that policemen sure are trained but that doesn't mean they are unafraid at all.It's like saying that a soldier isn't going to ask himself the question of whether or not he'll ever get back from war simply becaue he is trained or prepared.

[Priory Academy USSR]

You still have failed to respond to this:
"
Why would they shoot in a crowd? Are you implying this criminal is inside a crowd of people and he starts spinning around firing at people??! I have already talked about of all this in my post.But apparently you didn't take the time to read it.

And why do you keep on assuming that the criminal is always trained? Do you realize that the bulk of them aren't?

OK - how about giving this one a go - before any civilian can buy a weapon you give him a 30 minute course that serves the purpose of delivering this very simple message: Do not shoot a criminal unless there is no one in front of him/behind him +- X number of feet. Given that the civilians get the point and act accordingly this will virtually eliminate almost every case of crossfire."

It varies on the situation. In the case of Aurora, CO, everyone but the shooter was in a crowd, but shooting through a crowd is just as dangerous.

In which case, you'd not have shot him in the face as you claimed originally. Because there were lots of people within the relevant distance. Not to mention the fact, that they don't say it like that. It's obviously relevant how many people are between you and him.

I never assumed the criminal is always trained. I said they have the advantage, because these kinds of shootings are planned. They are. The Aurora shooting was thoroughly planned and pretty well executed. Probably because no ITG's were available to fire their magic civilian-missing bullets.

And I suspect if there was, he'd be the first target of any mass shooting. You know, take out the threats first.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Bullshit.

He didn't beg her to stop? Or he was no longer a danger? He laid on the floor when she was out of bullets (1). She was in more danger then than if she'd stopped one bullet shy (2). But he still laid on the floor on his face and remained there. There is no indication that one less bullet fired would have made him any less inclined to follow her commands and the fact that he begged her to stop is evidence that he was ready to follow her commands, thus no longer a danger (3). The goal of using a firearm, if you actually give even a little shit about human life, is to use the minimal amount of force necessary (4). In her case, with what she knew, I believe it's unreasonable to expect her to not have fired. It is not, however, unfair to suggest she could have and probably should have fired less, given what she knew, and still gotten the desired outcome, which was the safety of her children and herself (5).

Now say "bullshit" again and I will be properly and truly whipped (6).

1) Now you're getting things right. At no point was the robber begging her to stop shooting before she did stop shooting. That was bullshit.
2) No, she really wasn't. You're correct, at that point she didn't have any more rounds to use in case he presented a threat once again, but the likelihood of that was decreased because of her use of all the rounds.
3) You're right, which is why she didn't reload the gun and shoot him again. He was no longer a threat.
4) The fact that you say this suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. Firearms, by their nature, aren't a 'minimal force' instrument. This is why police have tasers and pepper spray. The point of using the firearm is that it has immediate effect, multiple uses before requiring a reload of some kind (unlike tasers), and the highest likelihood of actually stopping the person it is being used on before they can do something further (alongside of its relative ease of use when compared to other options). Guns aren't magical criminal stopping wands, and if someone gives two shits about human life they will realize this.
5) Yes, it is. In hindsight, you're right, it seems from the guy's reaction that he would have been stopped by less force. What you are apparently failing to realize is the woman had no way of gauging that immediately. Being hit didn't blow this guy back through some glass and leave him writhing on the floor. In fact, in all likelihood he was standing until after she had emptied the cylinder (but that is pure conjecture based solely on handgun caliber, so feel free to discount it). This guy, for all she knew, WASN'T going to give up just from one, two, three, four, five, or possibly even six rounds. She had six rounds. The likelihood of his being a threat decreases with each round she fires. Seeing as she didn't have time to run through statistics of how many rounds gives a significant margin of accomplishing the goal of stopping the threat, she went with the quickest, dirtiest method of making sure that likelihood was as high as it could be. Firing all six rounds.
6) Bullshit.

[Tyramithul]

Actually, the police suggested that he originally planned to rob another house but when confronted by the owner fled.

This isn't really relevant, since the woman who shot him had no idea about this. I don't want to try and paint a scenario that favours me here or pin my views on her. But for all she know he could've been a horrible murderer, and I do believe that most people would be inclined to believe the worst about someone who is breaking into their home with a crowbar.

I'm not someone who faults the woman for feeling this was a life or death situation, but now that we can calmly assess the situation, it's extremely likely that simply confronting the man would have caused him to flee just as in the previous situation. It's also utterly clear that he was no longer a danger and begged her to stop shooting before she did.[/quote]

I wouldn't risk being attacked by a man armed crowbar who is breaking into my home, just because he "might" flee, especially when I have no idea who he is, and I don't think we can ask this of her (or anyone else in the same situation). How do you know that he begged her to stop shooting before she did?

[Republica Newland]

Original Post by Zephie.I take no credit for this but this is just hilarious
"What an evil woman using a gun to defend herself. She should have just let herself be raped and killed like a good unarmed citizen.
She can't be trusted. She might shoot up her children's school now, and her husband, then herself. Then kill God when she gets sent up to heaven with a golden AK47."

[Republica Newland]

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.

You know what is treason? Trying to deny people basic rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[Priory Academy USSR]

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.

You know what is treason? Trying to deny people basic rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

For fuck's sake, why is everything dependent on a 200 year old document? Don't get me wrong, it was a major step forward in liberty, but that was over 200 years ago. We've moved on since then, and refusing to budge over a 200 year old right is plain strange. Take the Magna Carta, a document that guaranteed the rights of every man in the country. It's a great step forward in liberty, but as you can see from the link there's a part which stated 'Earls and Barons should only be fined by their peers'. That's a 13th century law, which no one would accept in a modern society. The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century law. This is the 21st century. We've moved on.

[Republica Newland]

You still have failed to respond to this:
"
Why would they shoot in a crowd? Are you implying this criminal is inside a crowd of people and he starts spinning around firing at people??! I have already talked about of all this in my post.But apparently you didn't take the time to read it.

And why do you keep on assuming that the criminal is always trained? Do you realize that the bulk of them aren't?

OK - how about giving this one a go - before any civilian can buy a weapon you give him a 30 minute course that serves the purpose of delivering this very simple message: Do not shoot a criminal unless there is no one in front of him/behind him +- X number of feet. Given that the civilians get the point and act accordingly this will virtually eliminate almost every case of crossfire."

It varies on the situation. In the case of Aurora, CO, everyone but the shooter was in a crowd, but shooting through a crowd is just as dangerous.

In which case, you'd not have shot him in the face as you claimed originally. Because there were lots of people within the relevant distance. Not to mention the fact, that they don't say it like that. It's obviously relevant how many people are between you and him.

I never assumed the criminal is always trained. I said they have the advantage, because these kinds of shootings are planned. They are. The Aurora shooting was thoroughly planned and pretty well executed. Probably because no ITG's were available to fire their magic civilian-missing bullets.

Nice.I really liked that.Calling me an Internet Tough Guy.What a mature thing to do.

Well guess what I wasn't even reffering to myself in that situation.It may have been any regular Joe.You do realize that a headshot really isn't that hard to pull off? Even with no training. Even for the average Joe. A Glock is really simple.Straightforward.Does its' job wonderfully.At a reasonable distance of course.Same as most other handguns out on the market today.

1.Point at head.
2.Shoot.

Now,I really really loved the Glock part.You must have heard some "gun-toting rednecks" talking about it and,like any self-respecting liberal/leftie (which you probably are) thought about using that in a pejorative way,like it's some sort of a shitty,cheap,"common among the rednecks" gun.
Oh well guess what.More news.Some basic gun knowledge.

The Glock family of pistols is actually one of the best there is.Of Austrian design and production,these guns are in service with countless (even elite) military and police forces around the globe.

Hmm.Gets you thinking,doesn't it? Bet those rednecks are on to something.Their tastes sure aren't that bad after all.

[Republica Newland]

You know what is treason? Trying to deny people basic rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

For fuck's sake, why is everything dependent on a 200 year old document? Don't get me wrong, it was a major step forward in liberty, but that was over 200 years ago. We've moved on since then, and refusing to budge over a 200 year old right is plain strange. Take the Magna Carta, a document that guaranteed the rights of every man in the country. It's a great step forward in liberty, but as you can see from the link there's a part which stated 'Earls and Barons should only be fined by their peers'. That's a 13th century law, which no one would accept in a modern society. The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century law. This is the 21st century. We've moved on.

The Constitution will be replaced over my dead body.I'm not just about the 2nd Amendment here.I'm talking about the whole thing.
If anyone ever attempts to do that,either I die or he dies.

[Dazchan]

For fuck's sake, why is everything dependent on a 200 year old document? Don't get me wrong, it was a major step forward in liberty, but that was over 200 years ago. We've moved on since then, and refusing to budge over a 200 year old right is plain strange. Take the Magna Carta, a document that guaranteed the rights of every man in the country. It's a great step forward in liberty, but as you can see from the link there's a part which stated 'Earls and Barons should only be fined by their peers'. That's a 13th century law, which no one would accept in a modern society. The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century law. This is the 21st century. We've moved on.

The Constitution will be replaced over my dead body.I'm not just about the 2nd Amendment here.I'm talking about the whole thing.
If anyone ever attempts to do that,either I die or he dies.

The constitution's already been changed 27 times. When's the funeral?