Naked intruder cracks one off in Florida rampage drama
Doctors have attempted to determine just what mind-altering substance may have provoked a carnival worker to allegedly jump naked onto a Florida couple's roof, charge into the house, smash a TV, masturbate on the living room floor, defecate on the premises and drink the contents of a wet-dry vacuum cleaner before he finally …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant
".....Don't talk balls Matt....." I wasn't, I was simply pointing out that it is much easier to find anti-gun extremism simply because their "arguments" are not based on facts, simply on emotion, so when they meet disagreement they tend to get more emotional, hence the jump to extremism.
".....You have ten apples, I have none....." So go get your own apples you lazy twonk, or is this some form of Marxist argument - all apple ownership is theft? Your argument would have been more accurate if you'd said I had ten apples and not caused any problems; you had none because you preferred cucumbers (pfnarr); but some other guy had thrown an apple at you so you decided that made it right to ban ALL apples, regardless of the non-problematic status of the vast majority of apple owners. As far as you're concerned there is no reason to own an apple, and you've been fed all these horror stories about apple throwers for years, so you simply choose not to look at empirical evidence but instead go with the emotional "ban all apples, it feels right" response. Full marks for being a sensitive, caring person, but zero marks for logical thought process.
Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "
@ Rampant Spaniel: Good points well made. The reality is that there are umpteen million guns owned by the public in the US. A reasonable percentage are in the hands of bad people. No gun-control law is going to alter those facts, at least not for decades. If I lived in the US, I would want a gun, and I would want my wife etc to have one too, purely because there are so many other people with guns.
@ Matt Bryant: I know we have had our disagreements in the past, but you have confused me. I always though that you were American and living in the US. It seems now that, regardless of nationality, you are are in the UK. From what you have written in the past, does this mean you think large-scale gun-ownership and strong self-protection laws should be introduced in the UK? If so, why?
Re: Re: Psyx @Psyx
".....But apparently we live in a world where it is reasonable for you to believe that we should go out and buy firearms to protect ourselves, but it is totally reasonable for people to buy security systems instead. Apparently somehow that's 'hiding' and somehow too passive for you, and you want a lethal option instead......" Why not both? I have a comprehensive security system on my house here in the UK. But here even in the UK we have examples of violent intruders killing people in their homes, so why shouldn't I have an option to defend myself? And it is not automatically a lethal result, the Lands example showed that having firearms did not immediately mean the intruder was going to be shot dead. Sorry, but you have an emotional response to the firearms issue based on your mental linking of guns with death, you cannot unlink the two and consider that introducing a firearm into any situation can result in anything other than someone being shot and killed. How you got that mental linkage is anyone's guess but it's unfortunately not rare.
I have met a woman in the UK that seriously wants to ban all household knives over two inches in length because she was mugged and stabbed. For her a carving knife is now irrevocably mentally linked to the violent and criminal act of trying to kill someone. The two inches rule she settled on is not even based on medical advice - there are vital organs within two inches of your skin, and even a one inch deep wound can cause you to bleed to death. In the UK we have truly awful levels of knife crime, but is just about guaranteed that every household in the UK (except hers and maybe those of veggies) has a cooking knife or knives that exceed her two inch rule and the majority of people will never face a criminal armed with a knife. Now, take a minute and think - do you agree that the government should have the right to take all those knives? You could probably get by with such a ban, but is it reasonable? If you even have to stop to think about it then you should be questioning the whole argument for banning firearms.
Re: @Psyx - @ JEDIDIAH
I'm sure you genuinely believe what you wrote. However having you, with those attitudes, as my neighbour, would not "help" me or make me feel reassured, nor feel that my family are safe.
Re: Intractable Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "
".....@ Matt Bryant: I know we have had our disagreements in the past....." Hey, what's wrong with disagreeing, as long as you can disucuss it freely, calmly, and with some humour? I long ago stopped expecting everyone to agree with me, the World would be a very boring place indeed if we all thought identically.
".....I always though that you were American and living in the US......" I've traveled widely for work, including often to the States, and my wife has family out there. Having actually been there means I know the trendy anti-Yank schpiel so common in the UK is completely false.
".....It seems now that, regardless of nationality, you are are in the UK....." Don't worry, retirement looms, and I shall be settling in the US for that. ;)
".....does this mean you think large-scale gun-ownership and strong self-protection laws should be introduced in the UK? If so, why?" We already have large-scale gun-ownership with very strict controls in the UK, it's just many shooters are so sick of being labelled potential child-murderers they rarely speak about their sport. I actually worked with a guy for two years without knowing he was a fellow shooter until we met at a competition! In the UK we have many restrictions on what guns we can own - no handguns, no fully-automatics, no semi-auto rifles except in .22, etc. - but that does not mean someone in your neighbourhood does not have a gun cabinet with a rifle capable of killing you at half-a-mile or a shotgun capable of killing several people quickly at shorter range. If you go look at the UK NRA website you'll probably find a gun club very close to where you live which you probably didn't even know was there. Now, think carefully - when was the last time one of those legal owners went on a spree in your neighbourhood?
Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "
Thanks Matt - that clears up the confusion about where you hail from at the moment.
I know about the gun-clubs, and there seem to be a couple within my new area in Scotland. Indeed, there are at least two clay-pigeon ranges (is that the correct term) within hearing of my study - I might even go and try my hand at it one of these days).
Regarding people being reluctant to admit gun-ownership, I was recently marshalling on a rally with a chap I've met several times. After a ?accidental statement about getting frostbite whilst hunting animals in some part of central Europe, and not getting a negative response, it turned out that he is member of a gun-club who has a sideline to his main job culling wild animals. He used to be a sniper in the Forces, and feels naked without a gun nearby! In the past, I also had friends who made specialist ammunition, and had all sorts of interesting handguns in the house. No doubt, if Hungerford and Dunblane hadn't happened, I would be an owner of handguns myself - I'm not particularly interested in long-guns.
However, I'm not sure we are comparing like with like. Legal gun-owners with proper supervision and training (which should be *much* more than 12 hours, as it seems a CC licence requires in the USA) are hardly the problem anywhere. However, as I said in the post to Rampant Spaniel, if I lived in the US, I would want a gun - there are too many bad people with them, and arguably good ones like JEDIDIAH might decide to set his dogs or his weapons on me for looking different. One of the reasons I won't visit the US is because I would be at a disadvantage compared to the locals.
Most countries in the (Western) world demonstrate that gun-ownership does not equate to mass-murder (if I recall, Canada has a similar percentage of gun ownership and very small gun-death rates). The US has special problems, and such a horror of regulation that no control is practical, and avoidable deaths by both will keep happening purely because of that cultural trait.
Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary
And a few residents of a large island off the west coast of France are addicted to making lame generalizations about 330,000,000 people as though we all lived in Croydon...
Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law
"... Not everyone who owns an Audi is a tit, I'm sure there are normal Audi owners..."
I'll have to see some statistical evidence from a scientific study before I give that statement full credence. I think it's something that sublimates off the interior which causes this type of mentality; some people may just be naturally immune.
Re: G Olson Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law
".....I think it's something that sublimates off the interior....." Actually I think it was a very clever bit of reverse psychology in an Audi ad that ran a few years back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIQ-283wKgg). In it, you see a typical spiv tw@ test-driving an Audi (badly) intercut with scenes of his yuppy lifestyle. At the end of the ad, the tw@ gets out of the Audi and hands the keys back to the sauve salesguy with the words "Nah, it's not really my style, know what I mean". I reckon that all the BMW drivers saw it and thought that if they switched to Audis it would somehow make them look less tw@-like.....
Re: ...great deal more satisfying.
I agree.
That ID10T (the IT angle here), is lucky that Mr Land did not just beat the shit out of him with said bat. A few, well placed strikes to the fingers, toes, ankles, knees, wrists and elbows; would have put the nutter in a world of hurt. And provide a strong incentive to never do that again.
Re: @The First Dave
Re my comment Monday 28 Jan 13:48,
Two downvotes.
Guess that's two Guardianistas who don't put much value on their wife...
Re: Do we know the *brand* of the television in question?
Karma would be well served if it was a Sony!
Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "
@intractable.
Thanks for the kind words. I wouldn't worry too much about visiting the USA without a weapon. Hawai'i has no concealed carry, relatively low gun ownership (lots of hunting keeps it from being the lowest), and no concealed carry. Other than strapped to a police officer or when out hunting you aren't going to see a gun in Hawai'i. I also think that my not having a gun helped stop the situations I got into from escalating, although I also understand that had they escalated further a gun would have been handy. I did consider buying a gun but on balance I felt for home protection a baseball bat is effective enough and has less risk of collateral damage (again I respect my choice may be different from others :) ).
The whole situation is pretty screwed, i know a few canuks through work and they just cannot understand how some people won't compromise or see an kind of middle ground. Between the ultra libs who want to ban anything more lethal than a spork and the ultimate warrior types who batten down the hatches and scram the guberments coming for my guns theres very little chance of any common sense occurring. What we will get is a bunch of half hearted and mostly useless laws. The NRA and their counterparts exacerbate the situation, like some unions they push shit way too far to maintain popularity. Unfortunately normal folks don't tend to have lobby groups so we (and middle of the road compromises) get lost in the shouting.
As much as I respect the right to bear arms and how important it is, especially for home protection in some areas, there has to be some level of compromise about more extreme weapons. A handgun with 10 rounds is capable of doing a lot of damage, but when you have someone storming a school with a semi auto with a high capacity magazine and a pump action shotgun they are going to be able to do a lot more damage and be a lot harder to stop.
Only a few republicans were harmed in the making of this sense.
Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary
Battery, a polarizing experience; takes a few beers afterwards to get one's electrolytes into balance.
More of ours; look up "love in a canoe" beer.
Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)
You never fire warning shots. If the situation permits you might give a verbal warning but the general rule is that if you draw or point your firearm at someone shoot them.
Not only is a warning shot a waste of time, you lose valuable ammunition for the inevitable misses and/or the person may be wacked out on something and doesn't fall with the first few shots.
Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "
"..... The NRA and their counterparts exacerbate the situation....." But in the UK we relied on common sense and fair play, and what did it get handgun shooters? Opportunistic politicians, wanting to dodge the bullet of loon control, instead took the easy option of banning handguns from legal owners so they could tell the voters they were doing something. I was all for tightening up controls, restricting ownership and imports, but instead we got a vote-buying ban that did nothing to prevent gun crime. This year we saw another attempted assault on what shooting we have left with ridiculous demands for Olympic shooting to be replaced by Olympic laser aiming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/modern_pentathlon/8936619.stm), completely removing some of the main challenge of the shooting part of the event (judging wind drift, selecting the right ammunition, producing the right weapon design). If they want "safety and youth participation" then why don't they just make laser tag or paint balling an Olympic sport?
It is well past the thin-edge-of-the-wedge stage, and with the almost religious conviction of the anti-gun lobby you're going to see more and more moderates amongst gun-owners digging in their heels and falling in behind the NRA.
"....Only a few republicans were harmed in the making of this sense." Oh yeah, all them NRA members are nasty right-wingers, one step from Nazis, right? Like Dem senators Joe Manchin and Mark Warner, both hunters and NRA members? Come on, that dig was just the gormless sheeple's bleating.
Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)
"You never fire warning shots....." If the situation permits it why not? i'd much rather bring an end to proceedings without anyone needing medical services or a mortician.
".....If the situation permits you might give a verbal warning but the general rule is that if you draw or point your firearm at someone shoot them...." No, no, no! By all means, if the situation is so dire that your only option is to fire in self-defence then I'm all with you, otherwise you may actually not have reached the point of actual and legal self-defence.
"....Not only is a warning shot a waste of time....". If it stops the attack or the likelyhood of the attack, shows your intent to defend yourself, and will not get you sent down for manslaughter/murder, how is it a waste of time? Remember reasonable force? And remember that there are plenty of anti-gun crusaders in the law enforcement arena that will happily prosecute you if you have gone straight to DEFCON 1. In court a warning shot will at least show you attempted to defuse the situation before applying lethal force.
".....you lose valuable ammunition for the inevitable misses and/or the person may be wacked out on something and doesn't fall with the first few shots....." Come on, if you can't get a stopper in twelve rounds then you'd probably not get one with thirteen. I would instead suggest you get some proper instruction from a qualified trainer and practice, practice, practice. Ammunition is actually cheap and range time will build up your confidence that you can stop someone with rounds to spare. Hopefully you will never have to use the training, but you don't buy car insurance because you're certain to have an RTA but because you might.
Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "
Matt it was a joke. If you looked at what I have written I have been critical of both extremes.
Yes the UK went too far, but not by that much. The same solution wouldn't work in the US anyway, far higher gun ownership and far more guns in criminals hands. I don't advocate banning handguns, I think we need to create a situation where people don't feel they need a gun to be safe then the vast majority of the issues have gone away anyway.
We do need to look at ensuring guns are stored safely (and actually checking and making owners responsible for that), restricting the most lethal guns (primarily those with the ability to fire rapidly from a high capacity clip \ magazine ) and closing loopholes in buying weapons. We don't need to go overboard on banning weapons but we do need to drop the BS about it being down to video games.
There are a lot of factors contributing to gun misuse, social factors like education and a lack of parental guidance, piss poor mental healthcare for the poor etc. Just as much effort needs to be devoted to that. However the NRA won't budge and want to blame it all on movies and video games. That is what I meant. Not to mention the BS about how it's only ever gun free zones that shootings happen in, yeah fort hood is really a gun free zone. The same goes for the loony left who want to ban everything harder than shaving foam, thats a waste of time even discussing it. What do they think will happen? Gun owners will say oh ok then if they shout loud enough?
Both sides need to drop the BS and work on a real solution that fixes the actual problem. Responsible people with guns is not the problem. Loonies and criminals with guns is the problem.
Re: @Psyx - @ JEDIDIAH
"I'm sure you genuinely believe what you wrote. However having you, with those attitudes, as my neighbour, would not "help" me or make me feel reassured, nor feel that my family are safe."
You'd feel safer living next to a guy with a bunch of firearms who is quite happy to kill someone, so long as it's legal?
At least you know you're not going to get some 5.56 cruise through your walls if *I* get burgled!
Re: Psyx @Psyx
"so why shouldn't I have an option to defend myself? And it is not automatically a lethal result, the Lands example showed that having firearms did not immediately mean the intruder was going to be shot dead."
Then buy a cricket bat, or a taser, maybe?
Why does it have to be a lethal weapon?
"Sorry, but you have an emotional response to the firearms issue based on your mental linking of guns with death, you cannot unlink the two and consider that introducing a firearm into any situation can result in anything other than someone being shot and killed. How you got that mental linkage is anyone's guess but it's unfortunately not rare."
Oh, that'd be me growing up with firearms in the house, shooting from age 7, working with them, and living in a few war zones. This may shatter your illusions, but it's entirely possible to be familiar with firearms, own firearms, and enjoy shooting and to still think that wide availability of firearms and firearms for personal protection in civilised nations is a mind-numbingly bad idea.
Introducing a firearm into any situation does not equate someone getting killed, but introducing them puts the risk there. Most situations in life are better off solved without anyone getting a gun out, or having the option to.
Psychologically, make people choose between flight or fight when faced with an intruder or any violent situation and most sensible people flee, given a visible exit. If there's not a visible exit and they are unarmed, and they normally try to find one and use it. Give them a firearm in the same situation and common sense goes far too easily out of the window: Even obvious other solutions get ignored in favour of confrontation. The firearm psychologically sways people towards 'fight' response.
That's the thing: You consider that I have a 'mental link' between firearms and people getting shot. Many people have this mental link between having a firearm in their hands and them coming out tops in any confrontation. That's a problem.
"If you even have to stop to think about it then you should be questioning the whole argument for banning firearms."
I've never said 'ban all firearms'. You've just taken my approach in this debate that the family had no need to use firearms and could just have buggered off out the back door and assumed I hate guns. Smooth work there in painting me as one of the extremists we discussed.
I just firmly believe that firearms for personal protection in the UK are a stupid idea that would do far more harm than good. And I think anyone even trying to say that it would result in less deaths really hasn't thought about the consequences of giving everybody out on a Saturday night the legal right to carry a sidearm.
Re: Intractable "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "
"Only a few republicans were harmed in the making of this sense."
Well put and sensible. I'm assuming the down-vote was Matt's, because you didn't completely agree with him.
Re: @Psyx - @ JEDIDIAH
"....You'd feel safer living next to a guy with a bunch of firearms who is quite happy to kill someone, so long as it's legal?...." In Atlanta I slept quite soundly in the house next door to the one of the local NRA members that instructed this course (http://www.atlantafirearmstraining.com/9.html). Please note I am not going to disclose what weapons he may have had in his home (and he had more than a water pistol), but no shootings took place and no 5.56mil came through the walls. I can't be certain but the fact he was well known locally as a firearms instructor probably reduced the chances of some local scumbag breaking in to houses in the street. Local residents did say to me that they were reassured by having him live there, so obviosuly they didn't have a problem sleeping either.
Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)
Matt:
If you had any active firearms training you would know that you are taught never to fire a warning shot, therefore your last is obviously invalidated as well as everything but range time being cheap. See below:
People stopping ammunition is NOT cheap. A box of 20 rounds of the 230 Gr Speer Gold Dot in .45 ACP runs about $25 (+taxes) in the U.S. Well over $1 per round so a fairly expensive thing if you shoot a 100 rounds a week which is fairly normal. Hell it is easy to shoot that many rounds in a day at the range. Sure you can shoot cheap ass unjacketed lead or FMJ ball ammo but not only are those not designed to stop people, every type of round shoots dramatically differently so you have to practice with what you plan to use. Training with cheap ammo (say around $9.00 for .45 ACP for box of 20) is just a waste of time if that's not the rounds you carry for self defense.
You said if you can't get them with twelve you can't get them with thirteen and that is just an asinine comment. Why do you think police or military don't carry revolvers anymore? In a live fire pistol situation accuracy can fall off nearly 95% at just three yards distance even for trained professionals so they'd rather have nineteen rounds than six or seven, twelve or thirteen. Hitting a live target when it is shooting or even scaring you is terribly difficult.
Lastly, years ago the NRA did a study on firearms accuracy and found that a pistol is the worst firearm for self defense (because EVERYONE misses A LOT) and their only redeeming factor is that they are easier to carry around than a rifle or shotgun. Even the NRA concluded that a pistol is a backup weapon only and should only even be considered if no other option is available. It says a lot if even the NRA knocks on the effectiveness of a weapon.
@Psyx
You might be living next to a person with a bunch of firearms right now and you'll probably never know it. Whether or not they are legal is irrelevant, there are far, far too many guns in every country on Earth to track and the fact is that most people never realize how close they are to them all the time. The simple fact is that considering how many people own guns (legally or not) a surprisingly small group of people get hurt or killed by them.
Not saying this is a good thing mind, just that the genie is already out of the bottle and there's no stopping it now. Even if you banned guns, ammunition, powder, primers, cases, bullets and reloading equipment there is so much of that stuff out there already it would be several generations before there was an appreciable impact on firearms.
I'm from the States and I wish that we had never allowed everyone to have a gun, but I don't have a solution to the millions and millions that are out there now. They're never going to be collected, there isn't even a way to track a huge percentage of them. Hell, people bring shoulder fired SAM's and RPG's to gun buyback programs here. I guess the best solution is to retire to my bunker and not worry about it.
Re: Psyx Re: Psyx @Psyx
"....Then buy a cricket bat, or a taser, maybe? Why does it have to be a lethal weapon?...." Both a Taser and a cricket bat are potentially lethal weapons, (should you beat an intruder with a bat you are likely to be arrested for GBH) and Tasers and other stunguns are illegal in the UK.
".....This may shatter your illusions, but it's entirely possible to be familiar with firearms, own firearms, and enjoy shooting and to still think that wide availability of firearms and firearms for personal protection in civilised nations is a mind-numbingly bad idea...." Nope, it simply begs the question why do you think you are so exceptional that other people cannot also be trained to use firearms responsibly? Do you have an incredibly high IQ? Do you have some hypnotic power? Were you born with some unusual ability that ordinary people don't have? Bionic implants maybe? No, you were trained, simple as that. It may have been from age 7, but that's not to say you cannot train adults (in fact, it should be easier with adults). What you are assuming is that it is impossible to train the average adult as a responsible gun owner, which suggests you need to go talk to some Swiss people.
"....Introducing a firearm into any situation does not equate someone getting killed, but introducing them puts the risk there. Most situations in life are better off solved without anyone getting a gun out, or having the option to....." Completely agree. Unfortunately, there are also situations where you do need to defend yourself, and some times a gun will be the best option. The obvious question is, if all you need is wit and charm, why do we have armed police, even here in the UK?
"....Give them a firearm in the same situation and common sense goes far too easily out of the window...." Again, you are assuming that no-one else can measure up to your superhuman powers of self-control. By the way, did I mention that whole training thing earlier? That's how they stop soldiers and armed coppers in even more stressful situations just firing wildly. Strangely enough, the Lands seem to have acquired your superhuman abilities and not shot Mr Bruni, or did you remotely control them with your superhuman telepathy?
"....I just firmly believe that firearms for personal protection in the UK are a stupid idea that would do far more harm than good...." So you are for banning guns in the UK, maybe because we're somehow less likely to be victims of crime? Unfortunately that is not true, even for the rich in lovely areas like Henley. Ever stop to think that if George Harrison had owned a gun he may not have been stabbed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/dec/30/marktran)? Harrison and his wife were very lucky not to have been killed. Please do try and tell me you think George didn't spend any money on home security, just for a laugh!
"D'oh" icon. Should've been the "Fail" one, TBH.
Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)
"If you had any active firearms training you would know that you are taught never to fire a warning shot...." Gosh, I didn't know you had taken every single course in the whole World! Did you take the FBI one? http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-13/news/mn-189_1_fbi-agent
Did you maybe write this manual that explains which situations US forces do NOT need to use a warning shot?
http://familysurvivalprotocol.com/2012/07/08/a-newly-leaked-us-army-military-police-training-manual-for-civil-disturbance-operations/
And here's an example of someone resorting to a warning shot causing armed intruders to flee, without shooting to kill as you advise (maybe he was not trained, or trained on Mars...?):
(http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/fake-fbi-agents-try-and-break-into-home)
Yes, I know most law agencies in the US do not advise warning shots for their recruits but that is largely due to the legal repurcussions of accidentally shooting someone and not because they deny they can be effective:
http://www.laaw.com/sig_warnshot.htm
Guess you didn't read this: ".....Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers....."
(http://handgundefense.com/facts.htm)
A warning shot should be part of every defence routine UNLESS you live in an area that has a legal restriction on them (I vaguely remember being told Kentucky has some law that a warning shot consitutes an actual attack or the like). It should always be the very last resort to actually deliberately shoot someone. If it is the last resort, fine, but if not a warning shot is still a reasonable idea.
"....People stopping ammunition is NOT cheap...." If you're shooting that much then take up reloading cartrdiges at home, it really reduces the cost and allows you to experiment with loadings if you want.
"....every type of round shoots dramatically differently so you have to practice with what you plan to use...." Stop talking complete cobblers. Most home intrusion scenarios are at a range of less than twenty feet (usually a lot less). The aiming point is a two-foot-by-one box, representing the thorax (forget headshots in a quick-moving engagement unless you really can shoot like Carlos Hathcok). At twenty feet it won't make a blind bit of difference if you shoot wadcutter, FMJ or any other ammunition. Indeed, it is common for .357 Magnum revolver owners to practice with lower-powered and cheaper .38 Special ammuntion for exactly that reason. Please STFU and go back to wherever it was you thought you learned about guns.
Re: needs semi automatic rifles.
And with that statement you discredit yourself completely as someone who doesn't even know WTF a 'semi automatic' rifle is.
Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law
I'll see your Audi & raise you a BMW & Merc.
Re: My post of 07:59, in reply to Jaitch (was: Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such <<snip>>))
Is not my post. ElReg edited it. Kindly blame ElReg if you disapprove, or applaud them if you approve, but keep me out of it. Ta.
You any better at shooting?
What a coctail of bollocks.
Contrary to popular belief - particularly amongst the armchair militia - hitting people is not that easy even at short range. Even if you have some skill on the range, it is quite a different matter responding to real evens and a hopped up moving target.
Why does whipping out imply she was carrying the .38? From being in bed I could get a firearm out of a gunsafe (in a different room) and loaded within 15 seconds - much faster than it would take to crack one off.
The Trayvon Martin murder case is vastly different. In this case the person was inside the house and an obvious threat with no option to just back down and walk away.
This has nothing at all to do with the Stand Your Ground law.
Re: You any better at shooting?
15 seconds, Charles? You need to get a dawg or six.
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1143214
Re: Trayvon was the exception, not the rule.
Actually he fits the rule. Pursuing dude had broken off following the Trayvon at police direction. Trayvon went after him. He pulled the piece after being attacked and shot him. Oh, and the dude only got classified as "white" because they wanted to make it about racism. If it had been a real white guy attacking the dude, he would have been reported in the media as "Hispanic" so they could still play the race card.
Re: Apparently is was all done…
Don't you mean shits and gizz, sorry my jackets the wipe clean one at the back there.
The guy went a bit overboard
This was like reading the script from "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".... It really couldn't get much more abstract.
Imagine for a moment that the Amercians decided to shoot all of the crazy people in their country. There would be so few people left that it would actually become "civilised" again. "People that own guns can't really be classified as being civil".
<-- IT Angle, anyone - Unless getting fueled up on Acid and cracking one off in the office is somehow IT related?
Re: The guy went a bit overboard
"Unless getting fueled up on Acid"
If you asked me to select an amateur pharmaceutical product as a contributor to this case, LSD wouldn't be the one. Ethanol and/or 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl)piperidine (phencyclidine, PCP, or angel dust) would seem more likely candidates.
Re: The guy went a bit overboard
I seem to remember that Angel Dust is the preferred tipple of your average America carney.
Re: The guy went a bit overboard
"Imagine for a moment that the Amercians decided to shoot all of the crazy people in their country. There would be so few people left that it would actually become "civilised" again. "
No dude: The only people left would be the people who had guns AND WERE CRAZY!
Re: The guy went a bit overboard
@Psyx
Sorry by wording on my behalf. I intended to make a "recursive" case whereby.
1 : Shoot all the crazy people.
2 : You have to be crazy to shoot people
3 : Therefore all the shooters have to be shot too.
Thereby reducing the population to a few Amish and some stoners....
( I have made the presumption that the Amish and the stoners don't own guns, are crazy or like to shoot people.
Right to bear arms
>"Mrs Land whipped out a .38 and fired three shots, which hit the wall.
So much for the argument that carrying a gun would prevent massacres.
Yes I did notice that Mr. Land subdued the perp with a 12 gauge but that's not exactly the sort of gun you carry about with you.
Re: Right to bear arms
".... So much for the argument that carrying a gun would prevent massacres....." Yeah, I know you really don't want to admit that warning shots would probably have scared off an ordinary intruder, and that it was only Bruni's drugged up state that stopped him realizing that he stood a good chance of getting shot if he carried on, but you carry on with your PC denial if it makes you feel better.
Re: Right to bear arms
Perhaps theres a typo in the constitution - perhaps it meant to read 'The right to beat arms'. Rhythmically - to whatever was being shown on the 72" at the time.
Re: Right to bear arms
Are you seriously suggesting that a woman when confronted with a drug crazed pyscho running rampage through her house would fire three warning shots?
Some people need drugs to reach an halucinogenic state it appears that for you it is the reverse and you've stopped taking yours. Get back on the medication.
Re: Right to bear arms
"Yes I did notice that Mr. Land subdued the perp with a 12 gauge but that's not exactly the sort of gun you carry about with you."
Except if you read carefully, it didn't seem to. Statement from the police says that he was still frothing and that it was tasers that subdued him.
Re: Right to bear arms
Maybe it would be a sensible and potentially safer suggestion for people to be allowed to keep a Taser for home defence?
Remember they have extra 'features' that make tracking where it came from, where and when it was fired easier than a firearm.
Re: So much for the argument that carrying a gun would prevent massacres.
Do realize that within the last two weeks we've had two more school shooting situations? And that in both of them, the shooter was stopped by someone who was carrying and stepped in to stop the problem before we had another massacre.
Home Owners Defending themselves
I dunno if this case strengthens the argument in the States for gun ownership or not.
Can't help but think though that in the UK the phone call would have gone:
"Police there's a drug crazed burglar in my house I'm terrified he might hurt someone."
"All right sir, calm down, we'll have someone round in half an hour or so to give you a crime number so you can claim on the insurance."
"I'm pointing a gun at him, if he attacks me I'll shoot."
"Our armed response team is on its way now."
Sound of sirens helicopter overhead much confusion the arrest of the homeowner and counselling offered to the poor victim of the terrible crime - namely the burglar.
If I sound bitter, sorry but my wife was attacked in a supermarket by a violent shoplifter who was stopped by a member of the public. the police spent more time trying to find the 'have a go hero' so they could charge him with assault than putting together a proper case against the actual offender.
As for the shoplifter he was given counselling, social services supported him, free legal of course, aid and help and eventually a sentence of three months probation. (He already had the proverbial record as long as your arm.)
Re: Home Owners Defending themselves
Seriously bad policing that, police are often too worried about the offenders rights half the time to not care about the victim...
@Alfred 2 - Re: Home Owners Defending themselves
Wrote :- " in the UK the phone call would have gone: "All right sir, calm down, we'll have someone round in half an hour or so to give you a crime number so you can claim on the insurance."
You have obviously never have phoned the police in such a situation. I and a neighbour phoned the police when a break-in was openly going on a few doors away. The police arrived THREE DAYS later, a friendly "neighbourhood" copper who drank a nice cup of tea . Both on the phone and when they arrived the police were more interested in me, like what size socks I wore, than in the burgulary.
@Alfred 2 - Argument for gun ownership
In the UK there appears to be a whole class of people who are essentially of absolutely no value whatsoever. This group knows all about their rights and absolutely nothing of their responsibilities. Fully conversant with criminal law (after personal exposure) no doubt the shoplifter above would have denied all charges but counter accused the law abiding member of the public who intervened.
These being the self same people who understand that they have a ‘right’ to
Legal aid
JSA
Disability benefit
Housing benefit
Child Benefit
What they don’t understand is that these rights are paid for and provided to them by the law abiding members of society. I guess the question that I ask is will this class of people either ever understand this fundamental responsibility, or are they pretty much going to be oxygen thieves from cradle to grave.
As a final argument a solicitor who I asked once about why he had given up criminal law replied ‘I defended a generation of people, then I defended the children, I can’t bring myself to defend the Grand Children’.
So yes back to the arguments for gun ownership. Answering my own question above what we have in the UK is a whole group that are basically a waste of time and effort. Whereas at least in the US the law abiding gun owners occasionally and probably at higher frequency than the rest of the population, cull this group.
This to me looks like in the US at least something is being done about this category of people. In effect the lax gun ownership rules will be affecting a Darwinian natural selection on the US of A's Jeremy Kyle generation.
This topic is closed for new posts.
