Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Americas self defense shootings.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Turbo Teg Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 06:07 PM
Original message
Americas self defense shootings.
Americas self defense shooting gallery.



Wednesday, March 19, 2008


Tucker, Georgia

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution of March 19, 2008
Elderly Tucker man kills intruder

If a DeKalb County home invasion suspect thought an elderly Tucker couple would make an easy target Tuesday night, he thought wrong.

Now the suspect is dead, and DeKalb police say the 81-year-old homeowner will not face charges for shooting and killing the man.

DeKalb police spokesman J.T. Ware said that about 11 p.m., the unidentified suspect, who appeared to be in his 20s, broke into the home on Zemory Drive, in a neighborhood off Lawrenceville Highway.

"The suspect, as he was entering the location, made enough noise to arouse the suspicions of the homeowner, and he was able to locate his weapon and load it," Ware said.

The homeowner confronted the suspect, and after a brief struggle, shot and killed the man, Ware said.

He said the homeowner, whose name has not been released, was hospitalized for treatment of wounds suffered during the struggle, but is expected to be okay. The man's 78-year-old wife was not injured.

Ware said police do not plan to charge the homeowner.

"He defended his home, defended his wife," Ware said. "He did what everybody would hope to do in a situation like that."
Labels: GA, home invasion


posted by Dave at 4:44 AM permalink


Tuesday, March 18, 2008


Kansas City, Missouri

From the Kansas City Star of March 11, 2008
Man thwarts three would-be burglars

The pounding of feet against his front door awoke a 56-year-old Kansas City man early Tuesday.

“Was that you?” Les Daniel called to his 10-year-old grandson in another bedroom.

“No,” the boy replied.

Daniel climbed from bed, grabbed two handguns and prepared for a showdown.

He recounted to a Kansas City Star reporter the story of the break-in at 2:20 a.m. Tuesday in the 4400 block of East 68th Terrace.

When he peered into his darkened dining room, fish tank lights illuminated a hooded stranger slinking across the room to inspect a home computer.

“Who is it?” Daniel asked.

“KCP,” the stranger replied, an apparent reference to Kansas City police.

Daniel saw a second stranger and heard a third. He wondered whether to confront them or just kill them.

“I was behind two of them, and they didn’t even know it. I could have killed them really quick,” he recalled. “But they looked young. And if I start shooting, they’re gonna shoot back.”

Not wanting to endanger his wife and grandson, Daniel called out: “Whatever you think I got, you’re wrong! There ain’t anything in here! You’re about ready to die over $8!”

He chambered a round in his .357-caliber Glock with a loud click. The intruders fled.

Daniel couldn’t figure why his house was targeted.

“I guess it looks like I got something, but I don’t,” he said.

Unable to secure his splintered front door, he stayed up the rest of the night in case the intruders returned. Later, he bought a new door with a strike plate, and a new wrought-iron screen door.
Labels: home invasion, MO


posted by Dave at 5:53 AM permalink







posted by Dave at 5:45 AM permalink




Kent County, Delaware

From the News Journal of March 18, 2008
Man shot in home invasion south of Hartly

A 29-year-old man was shot in the leg during a home invasion early Monday south of Hartly, state police said.

The victim was not seriously injured and refused to be taken to the hospital, state police spokesman Cpl. John W. Barnett Jr. said.

According to investigators, two or three men entered the home in the 3000 block of Hourglass Road by an unsecured ground-floor door about 2 a.m.

When the intruders were confronted by the homeowner, one of the intruders fired a gun at him.

The homeowner returned fire at the suspects using a handgun, Barnett said.

After several shots were fired, the intruders fled without taking anything.

The homeowner was struck once in the left leg, Barnett said. The gunshot wound was minor and he was treated at the scene.

A 22-year-old woman and two children, ages 2 and 11, were also home during the incident. They were not injured.

(More)
Labels: DE, defender shot, home invasion


posted by Dave at 5:19 AM permalink


Monday, March 17, 2008


Harrison County, Kentucky

From WLEX of March 10, 2008
Burglar Shot By Homeowner, Arrested

An alleged burglar who was shot by a homeowner in Harrison County Sunday night is now behind bars.

The incident happened at about 9:30 p.m. at a home on Old Lair Road. Police say Thomas Perysian, 25, of Cynthiana was discovered by homeowner Kevin Landrum, who shot Perysian in his right hand and forearm with a shotgun. Police say Landrum called them from a cell phone while holding the gun on Perysian.

Police say Perysian was treated and released from UK Hospital. He is now being held in the Grant County Detention Center on first-degree burglary charges.
Labels: KY, residence robbery


posted by Dave at 6:56 PM permalink


Sunday, March 16, 2008


Cottonwood, Arizona

From February 22, 2008 Cottonwood Police Department press release:

UPDATE: On 02-22-08 at about 11:08 am a fatal shooting occurred in the parking lot of the Safeway store, 1635 E. Cottonwood Street. The deceased person is identified as James Keith Orsini, 47, of Cottonwood. Mr. Orsini died at the scene. Next of kin have been notified.

ORIGINAL REPORT: The Cottonwood Police Department is investigating a homicide that occurred on February 22, 2008 at about 11:08 AM in the Safeway Store parking lot.

Cottonwood, Arizona, February 22, 2008 - Today at about 1108 AM Officers of the Cottonwood Police Department responded to the parking lot of the Safeway Store, 1635 E Cottonwood Street, on the report of shots fired. They found one subject down with apparent gunshot wounds and a second subject nearby. The gunshot victim was deceased at the scene. At the time of this report he has not been positively identified. The other party involved is identified as James Sherman King, 59 years old, of Cottonwood.

Preliminary investigation revealed that the incident started on the roadway and both subjects pulled into the store parking lot. Witnesses state that the deceased subject approached Mr. King with a raised axe. They heard two shots and the man with the axe fell to the ground.
Labels: altercation, AZ


posted by Clayton at 7:17 PM permalink




South Salt Lake, Utah

From March 15, 2008 KUTV channel 2:

A man shot an intruder in the stomach after the suspect attacked his girlfriend in her South Salt Lake home.

The woman was sleeping in her home in Mountain Shadows Apartments on 3900 south and 700 west, when around 5:45 a.m., she was awakened by a loud bang.

A man, who police have identified as 18-year-old, Daniel Glen Larson, allegedly kicked in the apartment door and shattered the door frame.

The woman immediately alerted her boyfriend, who was also in the apartment and began calling 911.

Just as she was dialing the numbers into her phone, Larson allegedly grabbed the woman and began attacking her.

Seconds later, the woman’s boyfriend retrieved his loaded handgun and shot Larson in the abdomen.

Wounded, Larson ran to the living room where both victims attempted to restrain him until police arrived.

Larson broke free from the man and woman and jumped through a plate of glass window, dramatically exiting the apartment.

Larson then attempted to run across 3900 south, where he was almost hit by motorists.

After a minor struggle with the arriving South Salt Lake officers, Larson was taken into custody.

Police say that this was definitely not what the intruder expected.

“We had a bandit that in this case, bit off a little more than he could chew,” said Gary Keller from the South Salt Lake Police Department.

The man who shot Larson has a concealed weapon’s permit and has received training in operating of handguns.
Labels: concealed carry permit, home invasion, UT


posted by Clayton at 7:12 PM permalink


Posted this in a thread, but thought I should make it a topic of it's own. I had to re-do it since I accidently broke DU rules the first time around.


North Richland Hills, Texas

From the March 14, 2008 Dallas Morning News:

A homeowner shot an intruder early Friday morning, and North Richland Hills police were investigating whether criminal charges would be filed.

The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. in the 7900 block of Laura Street, said North Richland Hills police Sgt. Greg Trickey.

The 30-year-old homeowner heard some noises outside and confronted a person in his backyard. The homeowner told the person to stay put, but the man advanced, police said. Samuel Thomas Ford, 27, was shot in the shoulder and taken to John Peter Smith Hospital with a non-life threatening injury, police said.

Police declined to release the name of the homeowner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for posting that...
The national news, IGNORES these happenings, not considering them newsworthy...But if a someone is seen near a school with what is BELIEVED a gun, the press pisses itself and it is on the national news for a few hours.

Thus, the public gets a very slanted view of reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbo Teg Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You
are absolutley correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. hmmmm...no links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I suspect...
...lack of links is from a copy/paste error, not for lack of supporting information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I suspect ...


that where it's copied/pasted from would be something better not revealed hereabouts ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbo Teg Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. And that's where your absolutely wrong.
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 08:05 PM by Turbo Teg
Here's the link. http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

The reason that I didn't post a link is because I didn't think there was a reason to. There is another post that is counter to this that does not have a link, so I didn't think it was needed, not because I don't want anyone to know where it came from. By the way, all that happend in a week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. uh ... I don't think so
Perhaps you thought I was referring to a particular place. I wasn't. I was just referring to the kind of place where one might find things like this:
An Idaho State University student.
A Democrat.
Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
-- referring to another Idaho blogger linked from a page of the site in question:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html

About the sort of thing I expected to see.

Of course, there's also the link to "Another conservative".

Oooh! How about the link to a blog about "Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party"?? Wouldn't want to miss that one!

"Right Thoughts"? "Michelle Malkin's blog"?

"May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list"???? Shurely not. Shurely he supports ALL of that bill of rights thingie.

The kind of place that I find it passing strange that so many people who post in the Guns forum of DU spend so much of their time at.

Lordy, lordy, lordy. Do you folks never realize how transparent it all is??


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbo Teg Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Lordy, lordy,
I'm sorry that most of the pro-gun websites are also republican. Also, gees, because their republican it makes them less note worthy or un-true right? Because posting snippets from papers and what not from around the country deffinatly makes it politcal. Read into it whatever you want, but it won't change the fact that these people used a gun for self defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smb Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. I'm Really Sorry...
...that the Democratic Party was so foolish as to attach the gun-control albatross to its neck.

If you want to talk about lives lost, think of the people who would still be alive if Al Gore had been President for the last seven years....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. You still have not said anything regarding the FACTS of the post.
If you wish to have an honest discourse please make you posts relevant to the facts of the OP. Your continued disparaging of the source of the FACTS (while ignoring the facts of the matter) would indicate that you are more interested in "trolling" the post rather than contributing to the debate.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadEyeDyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Trust me, the AJC is not a conservative, rw, gun loving paper and
this one hits mighty close to home. I did a student internship at the Chamblee-Dunwoody CDC campus right down the road from the location of the first post. It has been all over the news yesterday. Out office administrator was vehemently anti-gun. She lived in the area of that shooting.

When are all you gun haters going to wake up?
This is not a RW, LW, Democrate, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Christian, Atheist, Gay, Straight, Lesibian or Transgendered issue. It is about self-defense and survival!!!

When it comes to protectling myself and my loved ones, I am apolitical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. But it is so much easier to disallow the facts
by claiming the source is biased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. and it apparently is even a whole lot easier


Just to make a false statement. Given the number of times you're doing it without apparently breaking a sweat. Must be really easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. You demonstrate that the easiest thing to do
is deny something you stated.

5. I suspect ...


that where it's copied/pasted from would be something better not revealed hereabouts ...



Those are your words from post five. I've said nothing false about it. Only quoting your words there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Then follow the links to the STORIES instead of the ads
Each and every one of those examples is linked to the news site which reported it - running the whole gamut of circulations and political leanings. Do you invalidate everything seen on any site that agrees with you if they have objectionable ads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. The ever shrill voice
The ever shrill voice of our canadian friend. Attack the messenger good tactic. You and Karl Rove must be close. All this time I thought transparency was a good thing.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. blah blah blah: collective response to foregoing posts


I didn't have anything to say about the "facts". I have no duty to say anything about the facts.

No one here or anywhere I know of has ever claimed that firearms are never used for legitimate self-defence. I certainly have not done so.

I could pick apart some of the reports of such alleged uses of firarms regularly posted here, but it's hardly worth the bother. I could point out that someone whose home was entered through an unsecured door might better be spending his/her money on a lock, or remembering to lock the door before having that last beer -- it's all round just a better idea, from a self-interest point of view, to prevent break-ins than to be prepared to try to survive if one happens. I could point out that in many of these cases, where the other party is now dead, we have only the word of the person who did the shooting as to what actually happened.

But none of that would negate the fact that firearms are sometimes used for legitimate self-defence. Duh.


I dunno, though. How 'bout those root causes of crime, eh? Aren't we supposed to be tackling them?

We're not supposed to take measures to reduce the harms that result from crime -- and in fact to reduce the incidence of crime itself, since a whole lot of crime simply couldn't be committed without firearms -- i.e., by trying to keep firearms out of the hands of would-be criminals.

How come the solution in these other situations is the exact opposite -- to take measures to reduce the harms that result from crime, i.e., by making sure people can have all the guns they want for that purpose? How come we're not blabbing away about root causes, and how we shouldn't do anything to deal with crime that's actually happening, we should be working on making sure those bad guys have decent educations and housing and jobs?


For every householder who used a firearm to defend him/herself against a "home invader", I'm pretty sure I could find you ten burglars who appropriated the householder's firearm so it can now be used to rob someone else ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Well, where to begin on this one? Hummm?
First:

Post five you stated: I suspect ...
that where it's copied/pasted from would be something better not revealed hereabouts ...

And then you claim "I didn't have anything to say about the "facts". I have no duty to say anything about the facts"

Well here is a two for one: Yes and Yes. You cast the facts of the issues to the wind by disparaging the supposed source of the facts. THEN you claim to have no "duty to say anything about the facts"? How, um, disingenuous of you. The OP IS about facts. If you wish to contribute to this discussion then you DO have such a duty. Otherwise you are only disrupting the discussion: a DU rules violation.

NEXT: "No one here or anywhere I know of has ever claimed that firearms are never used for legitimate self-defense. I certainly have not done so."

Looks like a little CYA after being called out to me. (couldn't back it up)

NEXT: "I could pick apart some of the reports of such alleged uses of firearms regularly posted here, but it's hardly worth the bother. I could point out that someone whose home was entered through an unsecured door might better be spending his/her money on a lock, or remembering to lock the door before having that last beer -- it's all round just a better idea, from a self-interest point of view, to prevent break-ins than to be prepared to try to survive if one happens. I could point out that in many of these cases, where the other party is now dead, we have only the word of the person who did the shooting as to what actually happened.

I seriously doubt you could or you would have. Instead you disparage the source. Then you go on to IMAGINE how some facts MAY be in place on an IMAGINED situation that you created from thin air. Yeah, I'm SURE you "could pick apart some of the reports". Go ahead and try.


NEXT: "I dunno, though. How 'bout those root causes of crime, eh? Aren't we supposed to be tackling them?"

Um, NO we are not. That has NOTHING to do with the OP and has no business on this thread. Start you own if you wish to discuss the "root causes of crime". Don't hijack this one, that is in very poor taste and a DU rules violation.



NEXT: "We're not supposed to take measures to reduce the harms that result from crime -- and in fact to reduce the incidence of crime itself, since a whole lot of crime simply couldn't be committed without firearms -- i.e., by trying to keep firearms out of the hands of would-be criminals."



????????????? Crime has been around since the beginning of mankind. Time for a reality check.



NEXT: "How come the solution in these other situations is the exact opposite -- to take measures to reduce the harms that result from crime, i.e., by making sure people can have all the guns they want for that purpose? How come we're not blabbing away about root causes, and how we shouldn't do anything to deal with crime that's actually happening, we should be working on making sure those bad guys have decent educations and housing and jobs?"


Again, I think you should start your own thread if you wish to discuss these matters. It does not belong on this thread.


NEXT: "For every householder who used a firearm to defend him/herself against a "home invader", I'm pretty sure I could find you ten burglars who appropriated the householder's firearm so it can now be used to rob someone else ..."


UM, OK. So you are "pretty sure". Go for it. Otherwise it is meaningless prattle and will be given as much credence.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. how about: you should have saved your breath?

You cast the facts of the issues to the wind by disparaging the supposed source of the facts.

Bzzt. Big fat false statement. I disparaged the source of the source. If you haven't figured that out yet, there's no hope.

The source's source was not the source of the facts. The sources of the facts were the news reports cited in the sources's source. My question is about the credibility of someone who cited that source, not the credibility of the source; and the issue is not the truth of the facts reported, but the truth of something else entirely. Follow the breadcrumbs yet?


If you wish to contribute to this discussion then you DO have such a duty.

I place my tongue between my lips and make loud razzberry noises. If you wish to reply to my posts, you have a duty not to pretend to misunderstand what they say.


Otherwise you are only disrupting the discussion: a DU rules violation.

Otherwise you are attacking my character and not my words. We know what that is.


I dunno, though. How 'bout those root causes of crime, eh? Aren't we supposed to be tackling them?
Um, NO we are not. That has NOTHING to do with the OP and has no business on this thread.

REALLY??????????????? Then why exactly would it be that it is pretty much the standard response by any of your little chums when the issue of the effect of access to firearms on crime rates is broached in this forum? Where is your concern for the sanctity of the subject matter in that case?


Don't hijack this one, that is in very poor taste and a DU rules violation.

Are you taking odds on how long it will take to get what you are clearly begging for, and are you betting against what would normally be thought to be self-interest?


????????????? Crime has been around since the beginning of mankind. Time for a reality check.

Ya see???????????? Thar she blows.

Why don't you tell that to people who demand that there be no restrictions on their access to firearms so they are safe against bogeymen??????

Crime has been around since the beginning of human history. Deal. Wouldn't that be the appropriate response?

They get to defend themselves against criminals by blasting holes in them, and the public at large doesn't get to defend itself against criminals by taking measures to keep firearms out of their hands??????????


Again, I think you should start your own thread if you wish to discuss these matters. It does not belong on this thread.

Again, I look forward to you admonishing the multiple repeat offenders against your sense of propriety in this regard on each and every occasion they offend.

You can start with yourself right now:
????????????? Crime has been around since the beginning of mankind.

Bzzt. Irrelevant. Delete.


UM, OK. So you are "pretty sure". Go for it. Otherwise it is meaningless prattle and will be given as much credence.

Yes, history is meaningless prattle because you choose not to know it exists, or to pretend not to know it exists.

There have been numerous discussions at this site of the numbers of firearms stolen from homes and businesses in the US in a year or a decade. Find them yourself, or find the original sources. You got google.

Do you imagine that thefts of firearms have risen or fallen in the last 20 years?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
For 1987-92 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeded the number of incidents.
And those were the reported ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Laughing! How about: you try making some semblance of sense?
Me: You cast the facts of the issues to the wind by disparaging the supposed source of the facts.

You: Bzzt. Big fat false statement. I disparaged the source of the source. If you haven't figured that out yet, there's no hope.

The source's source was not the source of the facts. The sources of the facts were the news reports cited in the sources's source. My question is about the credibility of someone who cited that source, not the credibility of the source; and the issue is not the truth of the facts reported, but the truth of something else entirely. Follow the breadcrumbs yet?


My Response: What a bunch of double talking non-sense. You made the statement in post 5 and now appearer to want to say that what you said is not what you said. You said it deal with it. Telling me I'm making a false statement does not give you any more credibility, only less.



Me: If you wish to contribute to this discussion then you DO have such a duty.

You: I place my tongue between my lips and make loud razzberry noises. If you wish to reply to my posts, you have a duty not to pretend to misunderstand what they say.

My Response: WHAT? Are you conceding that you Do have a duty to discuss the facts or are you conceding that you want to make funny noises?




Me: Otherwise you are only disrupting the discussion: a DU rules violation.

YOu: Otherwise you are attacking my character and not my words. We know what that is.

My response: WHAT?! There is really nothing to respond to on that.



You: I dunno, though. How 'bout those root causes of crime, eh? Aren't we supposed to be tackling them?
Me: Um, NO we are not. That has NOTHING to do with the OP and has no business on this thread.

You: REALLY??????????????? Then why exactly would it be that it is pretty much the standard response by any of your little chums when the issue of the effect of access to firearms on crime rates is broached in this forum? Where is your concern for the sanctity of the subject matter in that case?

My response: Your generalizing and avoiding the reality that what you're bring up (root cause of crime) has NO place on this thread. None, nada, zip, start your own thread on that topic if you wish. To try and change the topic of a thread is rude and undignified.



Me: Don't hijack this one, that is in very poor taste and a DU rules violation.

You: Are you taking odds on how long it will take to get what you are clearly begging for, and are you betting against what would normally be thought to be self-interest?

My response: Have no idea what you are talking about.



Me: ????????????? Crime has been around since the beginning of mankind. Time for a reality check.

YOu: Ya see???????????? Thar she blows.

Why don't you tell that to people who demand that there be no restrictions on their access to firearms so they are safe against bogeymen??????

Crime has been around since the beginning of human history. Deal. Wouldn't that be the appropriate response?

They get to defend themselves against criminals by blasting holes in them, and the public at large doesn't get to defend itself against criminals by taking measures to keep firearms out of their hands??????????


My response: Not sure but I think you are conceding that crime has been around since man has walked the earth. At least we agree on that point. Thank you

I don't know of anyone that "demand that there be no restrictions on their access to firearms so they are safe against bogeymen." Sorry

"They get to defend themselves against criminals by blasting holes in them, and the public at large doesn't get to defend itself against criminals by taking measures to keep firearms out of their hands??????????" Who's hands are you referring to? I'll try to respond as best as I can decipher your remarks. Current gun control propositions do not do anything to stop criminal behavior but limit a persons legitimate 2A rights.



Me: Again, I think you should start your own thread if you wish to discuss these matters. It does not belong on this thread.

You: Again, I look forward to you admonishing the multiple repeat offenders against your sense of propriety in this regard on each and every occasion they offend.

My response: Um, Thank you?



Me: ????????????? Crime has been around since the beginning of mankind.

YOu: Bzzt. Irrelevant. Delete.

My response: Um What?



Me: UM, OK. So you are "pretty sure". Go for it. Otherwise it is meaningless prattle and will be given as much credence.

YOu: Yes, history is meaningless prattle because you choose not to know it exists, or to pretend not to know it exists.

My response: I said nothing about history. You made an assertion that for every one good use of a firearm there are two bad uses of a firearm. You said that you were "pretty sure". I'm saying to back it up and now you go off about "history is meaningless prattle. . .". One has nothing to do with the other. YOU made an assertion. Back it up or withdraw it. It is NOT my duty to provide facts to disprove an assertion of yours that you are "pretty sure" about.




You: There have been numerous discussions at this site of the numbers of firearms stolen from homes and businesses in the US in a year or a decade. Find them yourself, or find the original sources. You got google.

Do you imagine that thefts of firearms have risen or fallen in the last 20 years?


My response: Why are you interjecting a new topic here? It has nothing to do with our last two posts?








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Irrelevant post
The facts are without question. So if you discount the fact that it is hailing baseball sized hail because it was reported on Faux news would you still drive to work because it was simply not true.

It is truly a sad self commentary on a persons psyche that they disbelieve FACTS because of a difference of opinion on opinion matters.

Perhaps it would make you FEEL better if those FACTS were reported by CNN or MSNBC. Unfortunately they will not report them. The mer fact that they do not report them does NOT mean that the events did not occur. Would you dispute that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. LOL good one NT
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 10:30 PM by virginia mountainman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. right wing propoganda media outlets, every one.
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 10:47 PM by davepc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Typical first year law student trickery.
1. If the law is on your side, argue the law.
2. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
3. If neither is on your side, attack the credibility of the witnesses.

Well. . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DeadEyeDyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. How about...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L1A1Rocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Very good! Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EricTeri Donating Member (259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. We're ALL interested in zanne's response
I suspect we'll all be a lot older before we see any - at least any which are fact-based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC