man shot and killed while stealing gas from a car in Los Angeles

[Liberal_in_LA]

Sunland-area resident shoots, kills man allegedly stealing gas from his car

LOS ANGELES - A Sunland-area resident who said he caught a man stealing gasoline from his car shot and killed the man outside his home today.
The shooting occurred shortly after 6 a.m. in the 10200 block of Sunland Boulevard, according to Richard French of the Los Angeles Police Department.

The name of the man who was shot -- who was in his 50s and died at the scene -- was withheld pending notification of relatives, Assistant Chief Ed Winter of the coroner's office said.

According to French, the gunman told police he heard sounds outside his home, and he armed himself with a handgun and went outside.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_17611386

[LaurenG]

1. That is NOT a good reason to fire a weapon.

Geezus. Whose life was at stake there.

[slackmaster]

54. At least not in California during daylight

In Texas at night it would be a different story.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. The Shooter's, likely.

They would have arrested him on the spot if he'd shot the guy over the gas.

This sounds more like the fellow refused to get away from his car, and possibly advanced upon the shooter, which would probably give him justification.

Details are lacking. Will probably be reviewed by a grand jury.

[hlthe2b]

2. There will be a flurry of gun advocates that support this action...

We have so devalued life and many so admire Rambo tactics... Sadly, I'm sure some would likewise justify the shooting if it had been an 8 year old siphoning the gas. Absolute right to bear arms to protect property, after all..... :sarcasm:

[pintobean]

3. I suggest you read the whole story.

[hlthe2b]

4. I did... So, instead of calling the police, he killed him for a few gallons of gas

Didn't shoot to wound or warn, just fired a lethal shot. That is the point YOU want to make? Sorry, but that is akin to murder in my book.

[Rebubula]

5. From the rest of the story...

...he went outside and told dude to leave - something happened (likely an argument or struggle) and he shot him.

The dead guy created this situation. Period. With so many instances of homeowners getting murdered in their driveways\homes etc - there is no reason to see any situation like this as anything other than a dangerous situation. Stranger on my property - stealing my stuff while my family is home - That is a shooting.

Moreover - you have NO idea how the guy shot or if there was a struggle. Plus - shooting to wound? I guess you do not know much about firing a weapon or human anatomy - any shot can kill and shooting to wound is not why you shoot.

[hlthe2b]

6. It does not state he was armed. NO warning shot, no call to police

YOU ADVOCATE murder to protect a few gallons of gas. God forgive you. That is despicable.

Who knows what kind of desperation led the man to try to steal a few gallons of gas. Stranded, hungry kids, unemployed, seeking to get somewhere that would offer help? Who knows. But, to those who would shoot first and ask no questions, it just really doesn't matter. Despicable, indeed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. It does not state a lot of things, which is why I will reserve judgment.

If there was an altercation, the shooting could be justified. If the thief was shot while was running away, it was illegal. There is not enough public data to legitimately label it it murder or justified at this point. The cops may not even have enough to do that yet. That they did not arrest him on the scene is an indicator.

There is no requirement for warning shots, and in fact they are often a danger to others in urban environments.

[cleanhippie]

31. You NEVER fire a "warning shot", ever.

As you might kill an innocent bystander.

The story states the homeowner confronted the criminal and told him to leave, and he was attacked.


Warning shot..:rofl: You don't know JACK about guns or gun safety, do you?

[hlthe2b]

42. Shooting blindly at someone siphoning gas is not a risk to bystanders...

No, certainly. :sarcasm:

No, you are far superior to those of us who value life. Superior in your own mind, that's for sure. :puke:

If a police officer shot and killed a family member, who he mistakenly thought had committed a crime, but had not posed an imminent threat would you be so fast to applaud the cop? What hypocrisy reigns among some gun-advocates.

[Hangingon]

57. He hit the bad guy. Doesn't sound like he shot blindly. n/t

[cleanhippie]

69. Your attempt to throw insults at me shows you have no substance to your argument.

You are dismissed as irrelevant.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Shooting blindly?

Do you really think that we close our eyes when we shoot? Do you think that we just shoot in random directions? He did NOT shoot "blindly".

That is not to say that I think it was or was not a good shoot. I am criticizing your excessive hyperbole.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. You insist you read the news article. I suspect your reading comprehension is faulty.

Might be overridden by your emotions, perhaps.

[11 Bravo]

40. "Warning shot"? Please tell me you're kidding.

Seriously, a fucking warning shot!?!?
If you ever feel the need to fire in self-defense, aim for center mass. If you don't want to put the other person DOWN, then don't fire your weapon.

[WatsonT]

83. People watch too many movies

that 'warning shot' meme is utter nonsense.

[backwoodsbob]

44. how do you know there wasn't a struggle?

how do you know the burglar didn't come at the homeowner?

You sure are quick to pass judgment without all info

[PavePusher]

48. No-one has "advocated" anything. n/t

[WatsonT]

82. Only armed people can cause harm?

Good to know.

Also every gun class in the country advises against warning shots.

1) you have no idea where the bullet is going.
2) you have now revealed that you have a gun but are unwilling to shoot it. You have escalated the stakes without making yourself any more threatening.


And it's hard to call the cops in the 2 seconds it takes someone to run up and attack you.

[YllwFvr]

88. you never shoot a warning shot

and in some places, like here, it is illegal. Never fire a warning shot. Some instructors may advocate it, but none that Ive heard of. Shoot to kill, never to maim

[AtheistCrusader]

132. You misconstrue murder vs. self defense.

Pay more attention.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. So is your jumping to conclusions

[cleanhippie]

32. Pointing out facts in order to dispell a falsehood is "harsh and stupid"? WTF?

[joeybee12]

34. Thanks for the update...now give us the dead man's account of the events...

oh, that's right...

[Katya Mullethov]

58. " I didnt do nuffin"

Well , that's what his momma is insisting .

[rl6214]

67. Ummmm

What dialect are you speaking in?

[Katya Mullethov]

72. Misunderstood Ragamuffin

Disadvantaged adolescent . differently abled reprobate , street urchin , you know .....a thieving moron .

[AtheistCrusader]

134. A DA will do that. As, likely, will a grand jury.

[emulatorloo]

7. Story is too sketchy to draw a firm conclusion

"The man was questioned by police but was not arrested, French said. It was unclear if the other man was armed."

I'd like to see more details. Like was the other man armed or not?

[pintobean]

16. If you did, you only see what you want to see.

And I think you believe the crap on tv and in the movies.

[hlthe2b]

17. You provide NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING

to counter my comments. Just snark. Obviously you can not counter except with your bravado.

[pintobean]

30. Bullshit. The story speaks for itself.

The cops didn't say if the thief was armed, but didn't arrest the shooter. There's a lot missing to this story, but you seem to have filled it in with assumptions. You've passed judgment with few facts and some wishful thinking. I haven't made a judgment, but I'm guilty of something because I won't join you in jumping to conclusions.

[hlthe2b]

37. ...

Just damned sick.

[pintobean]

43. ...

[AtheistCrusader]

136. Hurrrr

[AtheistCrusader]

135. We could copy and paste the article again. You probably won't read it though.

Looks like you didn't the first time, after all.

[PavePusher]

47. Since the police have not arrested him....

I don't think it played out quite as you suggest.

Perhaps we should wait for more definitive data.

[X_Digger]

53. 'shoot to warn' will get you put in jail.

If the situation didn't warrant lethal force, then it didn't warrant an indiscriminate shot.

'Shoot to wound' is a Hollywood myth.

[Kurska]

86. You don't shoot to wound and you don't fire warning shots in a public area...

1. There is no legal obligation to "Shoot to wound" if you feel your life is threatened, nor is there even a real definition for such things. A shot to the arm or leg that hits a artery can be just as deadly as getting shot in the chest or head.
2. "A warning shot" how dense are you? Do you realize why that is a bad idea in a public area? Let me explain, whats comes up must come down. If you fire a bullet into the air it is going to come down SOMEWHERE, thousands of people die around the world because idiots fire into the air in celebration or for "warning shots".

[RSillsbee]

94. Shooting to "wound or warn"

is a Rambo thing to do. Most compatent instructors will teach you to aim at center of mass and shoot until your target is no longer a threat

TYPO

[AtheistCrusader]

131. Only idiots and hollywood actors 'shoot to wound'.

You are either justified in using lethal force, or not. Warning shots are prima facie evidence your life is not in danger, and firing is unjustified. Shooting someone in the leg as a 'less lethal option' is lethal force in the eyes of the law. Either you were justified in using lethal force, or not. Period.

Shooting someone in the leg can kill very quickly.

[Upton]

8. Sounds like the dead man brought it on himself..

going on another person's property to steal....you reap what you sow..he had it coming.

[joeybee12]

35. Yeah, the guy who shot him is telling the absolute truth...gun owners

always do.

[Upton]

41. Why are you suggesting that gun owners are liars?

Dude wasn't arrested...maybe he will be after further investigation...we'll see. Right now, it looks like a good shoot.

Oh, and why do gun control advocates often side with the criminals?

[WatsonT]

84. So we should take the word of the criminal over that of the victim?

[Taverner]

9. I guess no one here is worried about the posible outcome of shooting a weapon in a gas station

All ethics and morality aside, isn't it supposed to be DANGEROUS to fire a weapon around a gas station????

[Supply Side Jesus]

12. it occured at his residence.

[Taverner]

13. Oh - never mind then :)

[PavePusher]

49. In movies, and very rare circumstances in Real Life(tm).

Most of the time.... not so much.

[defendandprotect]

10. Evidently, no thoughts of calling police - 911? But taking someone's life was the first thought!!!

Because guns don't kill people -- idiots who own guns kill people!!

[Vinee]

15. The resident said he told the man to leave, but he refused, leading to gunfire,

idiot thieves that don't walk away when they're offered the opportunity to do so by their intended victims get themselves killed.

[walldude]

27. Right.. the guy pointed a gun at the guy and the guy stayed

You buy that bullshit? Really?

[PavePusher]

50. It doesn't say if the gun was displayed prior to the verbiage.

You seem to be making an unfounded assumption.

[YllwFvr]

89. it happens

last year four officers drew guns on a woman who threatened them with a knife. she charged, they shot. she charged four cops with guns drawn.
criminals arent too smart often enough

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Actually we do not know if 911 was called or not

Or if the deceased was armed himself, or much of anything. You are a trifle hasty in jumping to conclusions.

I will point out that LAPD if they thought it was unjustified at the time would have arrested him on the spot. That does not mean it was a righteous shoot, just that the cops on the scene (including higher ups) did not see clear cut wrong doing.

Best course is to wait things out...there will be more information soon enough.

[here_is_to_hope]

29. lol, 'defend and protect'...ah...

You know what that means, right?

[slackmaster]

55. Theft of gasoline is not a valid reason for calling 911 in California

HTH

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. You may be right there...would sort of depend on the location

Where the incident occurred, it is not clear that GTA would get a response.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. From a gas station it would, because you'd be stealing from the state via lost taxes.

From your driveway... Depends on whether the police feel like it I would guess.

[Supply Side Jesus]

11. A lot more to the story

LAPD would have arrested him if he shot the perp for JUST stealing gas. Whether jeopardy was forced is for the DA to decide.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. If you get caught stealing and you are given a chance to leave

you should take that opportunity to leave, not to get (further) into a confrontation with the person from whom you are stealing. Sucks to be the dead guy in this situation, but he brought it on himself.

[hlthe2b]

20. We don't allow police to shoot to kill in absence of self-defense

We require them to arrest so the person can be tried in a court of law. Yet, you think this individual should have the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Well, I hope to hell you never have a family member that gets caught up in such an event--the innocent bystander walking along as a homeowner decides to fire on some running burgler? Damn this attitude and those that have no respect for life nor our system of justice.

[Hangingon]

60. You are putting a lot of supposition into the situation.

No innocent bystanders are mentioned. Defense of self, home and property is not a vigilantee act. The shooter is judge, jury and executioner only in your mind. I think the most telling fact in this very sketchy article is that the police did not arrest the shooter.

[hlthe2b]

66. No.. I am addressing those here who are stating it would be ok to kill

someone for merely siphoning gasoline on their property... The barebone facts offered by the story. Whether it changes later or not with further reporting, it is this set of facts that many here are using to state it was appropriate to kill an individual for such a trivial crime.

[cleanhippie]

68. WHO stated that? Please point to the post where anyone stated it was ok to shoot somone

for siphoning gas.

[hlthe2b]

70. YOu merely have to read throught the posts...

[cleanhippie]

71. I did, and the only one stating that is you.

Making shit up again.

[Euromutt]

76. Not good enough; cite specific examples

And I do mean specific examples of people asserting that the shooting was justified solely over the attempted theft of the fuel.

The article is very short on details, but the fact that the LAPD--the police department of one of the more gun-unfriendly local governments in the United States--didn't arrest the shooter is a strong indication that there was prima facie evidence to support, or at least not obviously contradict, the shooter's story. Whether or not the shooting was justified depends entirely on what happened after the car's owner confronted the alleged thief, e.g. if the alleged thief became belligerent. Right now, from just this article, we don't know.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. The imagination is strong in this one...

[krispos42]

75. Nobody is saying that except you.

The guy wasn't shot for stealing gas, any more than he was shot for breathing or perspiring or digesting. He was shot because he decided to pick a fight with the owner of the car who's gas he was stealing.

And the car owner certainly had every right to investigate the situation and verbally warn the intruder off.

It doesn't matter what the guy was doing before he picked the fight.

[AtheistCrusader]

139. You really just don't see it, do you.

If he shot him over a couple gallons of gas, he would have been arrested on the spot.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. Look at the SIZE of that strawman. What have you been feeding it? Manhattan?

[walldude]

26. You actually buy this story?

A guy points a gun at you and asks you to leave, would you stay? Would any sane person?

I don't buy it. I think the gunman is full of fucking shit and trying to save his ass because he killed a man over a few gallons of gas.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Insufficent details to really say one way or the other at this point.

LAPD would have cuffed him on the spot if it was that clear cut. Doesn't mean they won't after an investigation.

[cleanhippie]

36. Or another way to look at it...

A man gambled his life and lost for a few gallons of gas.

Either way, its a tragedy that may have been avoided if we had sane economic policies in this country.

[rrneck]

51. Thank you. +1000. nt

[RSillsbee]

95. Many , many years ago I was threatened by a carload of kids

Armed w/ bats and clubs I displayed a firearm and the driver took off as he did the kid riding shot gun was screaming at me that he was going to take my gun and make me eat it. He would have been the first one shot

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[d_r]

19. I just wanted to post a picture

[Iggo]

21. Death sentences for EVERYTHING in the Land Of The Gun, says I.

[LanternWaste]

33. Given the choice between...

I'm a moral reprobate. Given the choice between shooting someone or letting them steal gas from me, I'd let them steal gas.

But that's me... I fully realize gasoline is quite a bit more important to many other people.

[cleanhippie]

38. I would tend to agree with you, but...

is there NOTHING you would shoot someone over?

[LanternWaste]

45. No thing that I'm aware of.

No thing that I'm aware of.

[cleanhippie]

64. Even your own life, or the life of your family?

You would take no action that may hurt or kill someone that is trying to hurt or kill you?

Really?

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Taking someone's life over gasoline?

Unless the man stealing gas was threatening his life, there is no justification.

Call the police.

[cleanhippie]

65. Risking one's life over gasoline?

Really depends on the point of view.

[JI7]

46. why didn't he just call the police ?

i could understand if the guy was trying to break into his home while he was in there. or even if he was still in the car himself.

but the way it happened it just makes no sense to me.

i'm not sure i believe his story that he asked him to leave either.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. He may well have...not near enough detail in the story

[pipoman]

77. Who knows

not enough info as previously said.

Here is a scenario which may apply..In LA it can take a day before police arrive to make a report on a property crime. Maybe this car and the gasoline in it were the only way this person has to get to work. Some employers don't respond well to 'my car is out of gas' as an excuse for not making it to work on time. Jobs are scarce in LA and times are tough. Desperation.

[YllwFvr]

90. police are there to record the crime on paper AFTER it happens

they usually dont interrupt it. they would just get there well after the crook left and get whatever description the home owner could provide, I doubt they would be able to do much beyond that.
Im not saying confronting the guy was the right thing to do, cant say I would or wouldnt have without being there myself, but calling the cops would have accomplished little

[VoteProgressive]

52. I would have never have confronted him. I would have called 911.

[pipoman]

78. How long would you have waited for a police response?

In LA it can take 24 hours for a response to a property crime.

[VoteProgressive]

87. I don't care. I am not going to confront a guy stealing gas just because I have a gun.

[pipoman]

98. Nor would I...'just because I have a gun',

can you think of no circumstances which would lead you to confront him with or without a gun? Of coarse any reason cited here is speculation at this time, but if you were to speculate. Say your employer is getting ready to lay off workers, you don't know if you are on the list, you think you may be if you are late to work, you go out at 6am to go to work and discover some asshole stealing the gas you need to get there, you have no money to replace it.....then what. Of coarse this may not be it at all....probably isn't the scenario at all. I could however understand a reaction that I, under normal circumstances, wouldn't consider unless driven by desperation.

[VoteProgressive]

101. My CCW philosophy is different than yours. I'll spend more time/money in the resulting.....

interviews etc. with the police than the gas cost me.

[PavePusher]

105. What is the long-term cost to society by letting criminals go about unresisted? n/t

[VoteProgressive]

106. Well, I just do not want to shoot a guy over gas or any property......

I think that type of thinking is what gives CCW a bad name to many people.

This gung ho crap makes us look like idiots. I read so many "shoot first, ask questions later" and "tried by 12 instead of carried by 6" crap on gun sites that it makes me cringe.

Criminals are not unrestricted. Crime is at an all time low. Shoot more gas stealer's will not lower it much.

You and I, I assume, are not the type that does that.

90% of experienced CCW trainers I have talked to have said to avoid shooting anyone unless your life, or another, is in danger.

I believe that 100%.

[PavePusher]

108. And again, you assume the shooting was only about the fuel...

and not about subsequent actions by the criminal when confronted.

As we have agreed elsewhere, there simply isn't enough info yet to make good guesses about the total circumstances.

[VoteProgressive]

111. true

[pipoman]

112. I wouldn't even under the circumstances described,

I am saying, it would be somewhat understandable under some extenuating circumstances.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. I would confront him regardless.

Having a gun would give me more options if the perp is violent.

[slackmaster]

56. I would have armed myself with a sword or a Louisville Slugger and confronted the guy

Tragic waste of life.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. Would have been bad times for you if he'd had a gun.

Worse if you precipitated an event where the thief could justifiably claim self-defense under CA state laws.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

59. The evidence is clear... California needs more strict gun laws.

[Hangingon]

61. +1!

[-..__...]

62. Bottom line...

one less gas thief to be concerned about.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

79. Shooter could be in a lot of trouble

Dunno about CA. In MI, you can't just shoot someone outside your home for a little property theft. Now, if he can convice the cops that he feared for his life, then the shooting might be deemed justified.

A couple gallons of gasoline? Even if he's let off, the hassle he's in for will be worse than the cost of a little gasoline.

I'd call it a dumb move.

:hi:

[PavePusher]

80. You are assuming he was shot merely for the gas.

Hypothetical scenario (that could fit in the VERY scanty report of the incident):

Owner comes out and verbally insists the thief "cease and desist".

Thief says "Fuck you, buddy."

Owner: "Stop or I will stop you."

Thief: "You and what army, ass-muncher?"

Owner steps towards thief.

Thief turns and brandishes a previously hidden weapon at the Owner.

Owner, being close enough to be in danger from the thiefs weapon, draws and fires.


See how that works?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

81. Like I said - IF he was fearful of his life, it's a good shoot

The story in the link was pretty sparce. I think that reporter has some learning to do about reporting.

Heck, even the can of stolen gas can be interpreted as a weapon.

You had to inject a lot of guesses about scenarios. If the reporting was thorough, that wouldn't be necessary.

[PavePusher]

107. Not a lot of guesses, those sorts of things happen with a certain amount of frequency.

But you are correct that the report lacks any information to make any informed hypothesis from.

[Bonhomme Richard]

85. The shooter handled the situation badly. A reasonable person would have....

called the police (maybe he did) then gone outside his door, told the man that the police have been called and he should leave and then go back inside the house. If the thief came inside after him then he would be justified. As far as I'm concerned the shooter created the deadly situation. By the way, the thief was a 54 year old Ed McMahon.

[Blown330]

91. No, the thief created the situation...

...that lead to his death. He made the choice to trespass, he made the choice to steal, therefore he made the choice to die. Pretty pitiful thing to get killed for but his choice nonetheless.

[Bonhomme Richard]

103. If only the world was as black and white as the wingers wish it to be. b/t

[cleanhippie]

116. Who are these "wingers" you are referring to? The poster you were conversing with?

[AtheistCrusader]

143. Situations don't get much more black and white, actually.

[Hoyt]

92. Some folks overly obsessed with their guns/power are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

There is not much I have -- if anything -- that is worth shooting someone. Now, if they mean harm to me or family, that's another thing. That does not appear to be the case here.

[X_Digger]

93. Right, and those who are pro-choice just want to be sluts, right?

You do realize that's analogous, correct?

*sigh*

How asinine.

[Hoyt]

96. So noted, X-D. I suppose that means you'd shoot some kid stealing crud from your lawn.

[X_Digger]

97. If a thief approached me and took action..

..that in a reasonable person would instill a fear of grievous bodily injury or death, I'd have no hesitation shooting them.

It's not the initial action that precipitated the shooting (assuming there's more to the story, since LAPD didn't arrest the guy), it was likely the thief's response to being confronted.

[Hoyt]

99. Let's see, you leave your house everyday with a gun. How can u make reasonable decision like that?

You start your day assuming you might need a gun. Call the police, or yell at him that you are gong to kick his arse, but don't shoot him.

[X_Digger]

102. And what if, when yelled at, he approaches you and says 'yah? bring it' and starts swinging?

.. or pulls a knife and approaches? Or a gun?

[PavePusher]

104. Obviously, you never should have interefered with the thiefs' actions...

Resistance merely emboldens violence, afterall. If you let them do what they want, they will simply go away and not bother you again.

:sarcasm: , if I must.

[oneshooter]

110. He could run away , screaming like a little girl. n/t

[Hoyt]

118. XD, you going to shoot an unarmed man. Jeeeez. And I thought you carried for protection.

[X_Digger]

122. Did you read more than the subject?

If someone convinces me that they're going to seriously injure me, via fists, knife, gun, whatever- I'm answering with lethal force.

Are you willing to take a beating just to be 'fair'? I'm not.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Fists and feet can kill.

Someone attacking you with either, is presenting a resonable threat of bodily harm.

Self-defense is acceptable.


Particually telling when you present an attacker with the idea you will use lethal force in self-defense, and they attack you anyway.

[cleanhippie]

114. You leave your house everyday in stark fear of anyone with a gun. How unreasonable is that?

You are 27 times MORE likely to be STUCK BY LIGHTNING than you are to be shot by a person legally carrying a gun. You start your day with an irrational fear, and you end it that way too.

[Hoyt]

119. Sorry out of town. Since I don't see the need to carry, I won't argue fear with you. I'd win.

[cleanhippie]

124. You are right about that, you certainly know fear unlike anyone I have ever seen.

Who is the most fearful? Yup yup yup, you win, hands down.

[cleanhippie]

115. Where did you go, hoyt, you wer asked a legitimate question. Running away again?

[oneshooter]

117. I believe that he is skeert. Or too afraid to answer. n/t

[Hoyt]

120. Oneshooter, you can't walk out of your house into a restaurant w/o a gun. That's "skeert" and

a total disregard for the other 300 million in our country who don't think toting in public is necessary.

[oneshooter]

121. Please cite to proof.

"300 million in our country who don't think toting in public is necessary"

You put the numbers up there, now prove it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[cleanhippie]

125. Don't hold your breath, he is long on words but short on facts. Its the ususal M.O.

He makes shit up as he goes along. Ever read that garbage on HuffPo? Best fact-free piece I've seen in a long, long time.

[oneshooter]

126. No "skeert" is fearing that what can't be seen. You , by your own admission

are " skeert" of firearms that you can't see, that might, or might not be there. You spend your life worrying about what you can not see, hear, or smell.

Yet you call me skeerd? Time to get a life.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

127. You really don't get it. I be cosurned about people who can't walk out of their house without a gun

Folks like that have to be paranoid and are, therefore, likely jumpy. Paranoid/jumpy folks ain't good when packing in places like Chuck E Cheez where a 4 year old might run by shouting "put em up buster." You might do what one poster said his "trainer" taught him -- "dodge and shoot."

Do the 300 million of us who ain't paranoid/jumpy a favor and leave em at home.

[Glassunion]

128. Are you afraid of the police?

[Hoyt]

129. Nope, they are trained (and accountable for their actions). They have been under pressure before.

Most carriers have never done much beyond shooting paper targets. Heck, one of the top pro-gunners here talks of "dodge and shoot." Wow, I bet that's safe in a crowd. Every policeman I've known has taken fire and most ain't gonna shoot someone because if it's avoidable (if only because of the paperwork and scrutiny involved). I hear gun carriers say it's a "last resort" -- but I'm not so sure they really feel that way.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. And your projection will never let you get over your belief they 'don't feel that way'.

[RSillsbee]

100. Funny though

when those of us who have shot some one chime in you tend to shut up. Why is that?

[cleanhippie]

113. Only in your fantasy world, hoyt, only in your fantasy world.

[VoteProgressive]

123. I have my CCW and there are some that are looking forward to it. But it is a small percent.

[lawodevolution]

109. Too bad California lost one o their model citizens, this shooter should get the death

Penalty. How's that, is that good antigun reasoning?