Packin' Heat

[gobears 0]

2. He made a point to say that he didn't think a guy who tried to rob 6 people at gunpoint deserved to die. I would like to understand what point he was making.

Suppose the gun had no bullets in it? Did he deserve to die?Suppose he never intended to shoot anyone but just wanted their money, did he deserve to die?Suppose the people there just handed over their money and he left without harming anyone, did he deserve to die?Was it better for the granny to take a shot then risk finding out? Yes but to say that he "deserved" to die without knowing his intent (would he have killed someone) or motivations (starving family, kid needs operation) would be to assume a lot.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

1. Many citizens of this country go well beyond supporting the 2nd amendment to an almost fetishization (word?) of guns. The family in Bob's link did not have a gun or two for protection. They had like 10 different guns. Why does anyone need 10 guns? Frankly, I think a lot of gun people just like shooting stuff and think guns are cool. It's not just about self defense. We have numerous magazines dedicated to guns. Americans love guns. Love em! I think it is irrational. But even I think certain guns are cool. Maybe it's in our DNA.2. I honestly can't get what you are not understanding here. I do not think a man who tried to rob 6 people at gunpoint deserves to die. It's, um, that simple. Cool fact: our justice system agrees with me. Assault or robbery with a deadly weapon is not punishable by death. Who knew. Of course, if you commit a crime with a weapon, you take the chance that someone else might defend themself. But making your own bed is not the same as deserving to die. I am perfectly content with the fact that we don't use capital punishment for anything but the absolute worst crimes.

Ok, thank you, as I thought, we aren't that far apart. The people in Bob's post were fanatical, no doubt, but they don't represent accurately the rank and file gun owner, 2nd amendment supporter in this country. The left tries to paint everyone that doesn't agree with them like the people in Bob's post. I thought you were flirting with doing that by making the comments about irrational Americans. And when you commented about the guy not deserving to die, and you not celebrating, it simply sounded as if you were declaring yourself morally superior. A very common tactic of the left. I understand now that you were not doing that, and I am glad I restrained myself from accusing you of it earlier, it took a lot of self control. I am against the death penalty, but I have no problem at all with that guy dying the way he did. I do think it somewhat amusing that he met his demise at the hands of a 70+ year old great grandmother. Hell, if we can't see a little humor in some of this stuff, then we would all end up putting a hole in our dome.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Suppose the gun had no bullets in it? Did he deserve to die?

No! He would deserve the noble peace prize.

Suppose he never intended to shoot anyone but just wanted their money, did he deserve to die?Suppose the people there just handed over their money and he left without harming anyone, did he deserve to die?Was it better for the granny to take a shot then risk finding out? Yes but to say that he "deserved" to die without knowing his intent (would he have killed someone) or motivations (starving family, kid needs operation) would be to assume a lot.

I am sorry but that is silly. And you pointed out as much yourself when you admitted that granny was right to take the shot rather than find out his intent. If you point a gun at somebody, then you deserve to die. I don't think it is near as complicated as you make it out to be. For every second you point or threaten someone with a gun is a second you deserve to die. Now killing after the fact is another manner. As I said, I am against the death penalty.

[gobears 0]

No! He would deserve the noble peace prize. I am sorry but that is silly. And you pointed out as much yourself when you admitted that granny was right to take the shot rather than find out his intent. If you point a gun at somebody, then you deserve to die. I don't think it is near as complicated as you make it out to be. For every second you point or threaten someone with a gun is a second you deserve to die. Now killing after the fact is another manner. As I said, I am against the death penalty.

An eight year old girl points a gun at you, does she deserve to die? How about a four year old? How about someone who is retarded or has mental health issues? How about someone who pretends to have a gun by making a motion in his jacket pocket? If you're just talking about this one particular case, then I would still say that we don't know if the guy "deserved" it without knowing all the facts. It sounded to me like you were celebrating his death at the hands of Granny As for the death penalty, I'm for it as I believe that certain people don't deserve to live based upon the crimes that they've committed.Seems to me like you are a black/white kind of person and don't really see things in shades of gray.

[vbnautilus 48]

And I believe Bob in his post indirectly pointed out another use for guns besides killing people.

Practicing killing people?

[timwakefield 68]

Zealous, I fundamentally disagree with you that he deserved to die.

Deserve isn't exactly the right word. He deserved a long prison sentence. But he 100% caused his own death. Literally 100% it was his own fault, assuming it happened as reported.Also, assuming granny really was the shooter, mad props on the one-shot-kill. Come on, she's seventy!

No! He would deserve the noble peace prize.

I'd just like to mention that he would actually deserve the Nobel Retard Prize. Taking out a gun on someone or multiple someones without even the ability to use it is about the least self-preserving thing a person can do. If you aggressively threaten people with a gun you should obviously be prepared to use it, let alone have bullets in it, unless you're suicidal. Which of course is why granny was well within her rights to shoot him dead.

[David_Nicoson 1]

It's appropriate to consider what's appropriate punishment for the criminal, but don't forget about the Granny. It's not all about bringing justice to a criminal. Do the victims deserve to be threatened at gunpoint? When the robber's intentions are not entirely known, who gets the benefit of the doubt?

[myenemy 0]

Suppose the gun had no bullets in it? Did he deserve to die?Yes.Suppose he never intended to shoot anyone but just wanted their money, did he deserve to die?Yes.Suppose the people there just handed over their money and he left without harming anyone, did he deserve to die?Yes.Was it better for the granny to take a shot then risk finding out? Yes but to say that he "deserved" to die without knowing his intent (would he have killed someone) or motivations (starving family, kid needs operation) would be to assume a lot. Yes.

When you point a gun at someone, as far as they know, you are threatening their life, and they should act accordingly. The intention is irrelevant.

[owise1 0]

1. That Americans irrationally love their guns. So if you support the 2nd amendment you are irrational? Not what he was saying? Not the liberal point of view?

different cultures etc.

That's the difference between Canada and the USA. In the USA you have the right to bare arms. In Canada we have the right to bare breasts. http://wired-wolf.net/swirly/gwen.txthttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/...canlii1119.htmlJacob's lawyer, Margaret Buist said "women now have the right in this province to do the same thing that men do: Walk down a street top-free on a hot summer's day." She further said that women can now go topless on beaches, in public parks, or while walking to the store without fear of being arrested.The Toronto Sun reported that "Metro Police said that if thousands of women decided to let it all hang out, they'd abide by the court's ruling." Sgt. Barry Brenham who patrols Toronto's beaches said "If the court says it's acceptable behaviour then it's acceptable - case law is the law." Acting Inspector Mike Sale suggested to the Toronto Sun that they have better things to do than force women to keep their tops on. He said "If it's the will of a number of people to do something the courts have found to be lawful then police won't focus on it."

[strategy 4]

.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

An eight year old girl points a gun at you, does she deserve to die? How about a four year old? How about someone who is retarded or has mental health issues? How about someone who pretends to have a gun by making a motion in his jacket pocket?

To answer, no I would probably not shoot them but try and disarm them in another way, or evade them. Hopefully one would be able to take cover and give verbal instructions to disarm them. This would be a case where you could in most instances say it is not justified to shoot them dead.

If you're just talking about this one particular case, then I would still say that we don't know if the guy "deserved" it without knowing all the facts. It sounded to me like you were celebrating his death at the hands of Granny

I wasn't really celebrating anything, though I did find it somewhat refreshing to hear about a perp getting killed as opposed to what you usually hear. My old boss's nephew, was killed the day before he started Med school while making a phone call on a public phone. The motive for the shooting was a leather jacket he was wearing.

As for the death penalty, I'm for it as I believe that certain people don't deserve to live based upon the crimes that they've committed.

I respect that opinion as I am not a staunch opponent of the death penalty, but I can't bring myself to vote for the death penalty unless we can guarantee it will be applied correctly almost 100% of the time. It appears as if there have been quite a few innocent people put to death for crimes they never committed.

Seems to me like you are a black/white kind of person and don't really see things in shades of gray.

No, I understand very well that things aren't always black and white, but in this case(if reported accurately) it most certainly is a black and white case, and I don't understand why people want to seemingly bend over backward for the perp and at the same time want to try and subtly blame supporters of the 2nd amendment for this situation.As timwakefield pointed out, "deserved" was a poor word choice though I have trouble finding a word to describe exactly what I mean. His death is justified?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Suppose the gun had no bullets in it? Did he deserve to die?Suppose he never intended to shoot anyone but just wanted their money, did he deserve to die?Suppose the people there just handed over their money and he left without harming anyone, did he deserve to die?Was it better for the granny to take a shot then risk finding out? Yes but to say that he "deserved" to die without knowing his intent (would he have killed someone) or motivations (starving family, kid needs operation) would be to assume a lot.

Yes.Look. If you point a deadly weapon at someone, you are - regardless of your "intention" or what motivated you to do so - by definition putting someone's life at risk. When that weapon happens to be a gun the person on the other side of your weapon is about 1/8 of an inch away from dead. If I am on the other side of that weapon I am not the least concerned about your "real" intention nor even if the weapon is loaded. You have UNILATERALLY decided to threaten me with my life to get what you want.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

you claimed he has more problems with you than with the dude who tried to rob 6 people at gunpoint. that's where you're off your rocker.

Yes, I understood what you were saying, but he didn't give me much clarification about what he meant. He went after me for going after a guy that held up 6 people at gun point. Without really telling me why until he clarified in a later post. I never actually thought he had more problem with me then an armed robber, but the way I read his first post it wasn't clear to me what he meant.

[gobears 0]

As timwakefield pointed out, "deserved" was a poor word choice though I have trouble finding a word to describe exactly what I mean. His death is justified?

Yeah - I just have a hard time with the word "deserved". Granny was obviously justified in killing him as well as anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation.

[TheNumbersGame 0]

The 2nd ammendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. Just sayin'.

[85suited 0]

The 2nd ammendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. Just sayin'.

since the cant repeal the 2nd admendment - they will just tax the shit out of it and make you clear so many hurdles to own a gun ... you won'tdon't worry bout the pesky constituiton

[colonel Feathers 5]

Suppose the gun had no bullets in it? Did he deserve to die?Suppose he never intended to shoot anyone but just wanted their money, did he deserve to die?Suppose the people there just handed over their money and he left without harming anyone, did he deserve to die?Was it better for the granny to take a shot then risk finding out? Yes but to say that he "deserved" to die without knowing his intent (would he have killed someone) or motivations (starving family, kid needs operation) would be to assume a lot.

So whenever someone is threatened with a gun he needs to determine if the gun is loaded, if the guy will really shoot you., before he can defend himself?You gotta be an aclu atty.

[gobears 0]

So whenever someone is threatened with a gun he needs to determine if the gun is loaded, if the guy will really shoot you., before he can defend himself?You gotta be an aclu atty.

Nope - I said that Granny was justifiedIt's all about whether the guy "deserved" to die. If he wasn't going to shoot anyone, then I'd say he deserved jail time more than death.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

There's a difference between Granny being justified in shooting the scumbag and the scumbag deserving to die.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Nope - I said that Granny was justifiedIt's all about whether the guy "deserved" to die. If he wasn't going to shoot anyone, then I'd say he deserved jail time more than death.

OK i guess Im misconstruing the whole "deserving" aspect of this. However his death was justified.

[85suited 0]

you point a gun at someone , you deserve what ever happens

[Nimue1995 1]

My husband and his dad are out hunting elk this week. And they do practice target shooting before they go. But he also carries a handgun in the woods as well. 1. you never know when you might be faced with a situation where a rifle isn't the best option to use in order to save your life (thinking bears which seem to have higher populations this year) and 2. if you wound an animal, you want to be able to put it out of it's misery quickly and humanely. And yes we do eat the meat. I won't say that he hunts for only for meat because anyone who tells you that is a liar. If I were to figure out what it costs for the meat we've gotten, the meat probably cost about $432.00 a pound. But he enjoys it, enjoys the time outdoors and enjoys the time with his dad doing something they both like. And if he gets an elk then that's a bonus on top of him having a nice vacation.

[slink 1]

Not to derail too far but, how does elk or bear taste?

[Nimue1995 1]

Not to derail too far but, how does elk or bear taste?

Elk is pretty close to beef. Not as gamey as venison can sometimes be. With venison it depends a great deal on the deer's diet. Elk tend to be grazers and therefore taste more like beef. Deer tend to be browsers which accounts for venison sometimes being gamey if their diet is mostly trees & brush. Beer is greasy in my opinion. I don't care for it. Only reason my hubby would shoot a bear is if it were heading his way to attack him or was attacking him. There are some that like bear meat. Just isn't our thing so he doesn't hunt it. We eat what he kills (whenever he kills anything,lol).

[akoff 0]

That's the difference between Canada and the USA. In the USA you have the right to bare arms. In Canada we have the right to bare breasts. http://wired-wolf.net/swirly/gwen.txthttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1996/...canlii1119.htmlJacob's lawyer, Margaret Buist said "women now have the right in this province to do the same thing that men do: Walk down a street top-free on a hot summer's day." She further said that women can now go topless on beaches, in public parks, or while walking to the store without fear of being arrested.The Toronto Sun reported that "Metro Police said that if thousands of women decided to let it all hang out, they'd abide by the court's ruling." Sgt. Barry Brenham who patrols Toronto's beaches said "If the court says it's acceptable behaviour then it's acceptable - case law is the law." Acting Inspector Mike Sale suggested to the Toronto Sun that they have better things to do than force women to keep their tops on. He said "If it's the will of a number of people to do something the courts have found to be lawful then police won't focus on it."

this post is worthless without pictures.