Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
As you’ve been shown multiple times, it is far more likely that a gun owner will be injured or killed than ever use their gun in self defense. Your anecdotes are meaningless.
I think you missed something- I did say I was not pro abortion, but I don’t think it should be legislated. It’s a personal decision made for whatever reasons they are made. I’m not for it, but I shouldnt have any say unless I’m involved.
I've posted several stats/links that say the majority of mass shootings have nothing to do with any of this stuff that you are mentioning here.
It is an interesting idea, and IMO one that people like SC need to try to reconcile in their head who are putting the goalposts to stopping all violence but are very much against abortion being an option.
I grew up in rural Wisconsin. We could hunt and trap right out of our back door. On land we owned we were unrestricted, by age, from hunting with or without adults, but we nevertheless had adult supervision. In Junior High they offered a course over the Winter break which we called Christmas break. It was a hunters safety course. Upon obtaining a certificate one could hunt public lands at 14 without supervision. I got the certificate. I did not hunt public lands without supervision until I was 16, my Dad's rule, not the States. My Junior High had a rifle team. My Senior High did not. My Junior High required us to take industrial arts, wood shop, metal working, and electrical training. One of the approved or pre-approved wood shop projects was a gun rack for your pick up, which you were sort of presumed to be getting some day. In High School, during hunting season, it was common to see pick ups parked in the student lot with guns in the gun racks. We never had an adverse incident.
we have background checkstimschochet said:
yes Democrats want bans - at least BETO was honest - did you read what he said ?
ok that sound like tanks, bazookas, fully auto rifles, landmines etc, right ?
I have a 1970 Remington semi-auto, .243 .... shoots a 89 gr bullet high speeds and if it hits solid bone will explode on impact .............. BTW dispersing KE is exactly what some ammo is designed to do - its called stopping power. Others are designed to pass through.
"guns killed nearly 39,000 Americans in 2016"
that's not a known fact - you don't know how many unreported incidents of using guns to stop crime exists. You are guessing to support your views.
so the victim of a crime is now the criminal?
One does not shoot into the dark at a fleeing person. Once the danger has abated there is no right to fire. he is, by his own admission (If one can believe a press report) a criminal. He had no right to fire, he discharged recklessly.
we don't know all the story - was the first shot the one that mattered? second shot was in the air right ?
Sorry, not going to play your game. Second shot was reckless whether or not it hit the fleeing criminal. We don't execute for property crimes. We do allow deadly force when life or limb are threatened. Maybe if the criminal was advancing upon him after he verbally confronted him , the criminal, from a distance, as the homeowner claims that shot was justified, but the shot into the dark at someone fleeing, nope, reckless and that makes him too, the homeowner, a criminal. You do not shoot into the dark, unsure of your target or of bystanders.
the criminal's intent absolutely makes a difference - this was posted as a suggestion that the victim of a crime had become a murderer - I don't know how the courts will see it, what evidence is around etc etc, neither do you
There is a reason that the shooter is being charged with murder. If you can’t understand that, you shouldn’t be allowed to own a deadly weapon.
As is usual he will not get off of his talking points to acknowledge he is wrong. He knows you don't get to discharge your weapon into the night when there is no reason therefore, so he wants to concentrate on the original perpetrator and forget that the homeowner did something stupid and reckless. Bad luck he hit the perpetrator, or maybe he did so earlier and he bleed out in the park, but if the blood trail started close to the shooter, in a zone of danger, well I don't imagine there being charges. Good luck to the Homeowner that he did not hit some kid in the park or open space there making out with the Mayor's daughter. This gun owner was wrong, criminally wrong, and Stealthy damn well knows it but he tries to sell his claptrap anyhow. He weakens all his points with this crap. He is the last person anyone would want defending gun owners or the second amendment, unless one wanted to ridicule that side.
if he's convicted of murder then yes, he did wrong based on evidence
What if he's not convicted and they the family sues him for wrongful death and wins?
then he's like OJ Simpson
What does him expressing his opinion on it and saying he's not advocating a ban have anything to do with Beto and "anti-gunners"? You seem to be obsessed with Beto
he's being charged with murder because he was in no imminent danger and killed someone. I get that you don't understand how laws work, but if you're advocating that gun owners should be able to kill people at will without any threat of danger you're deranged. At this point you're defending an accused murderer because you're so desperate to always be on the side of more gun use.
Remember way back the article that he posted about the 2 dudes who fought, separated, fought, separated, then one got a gun and shot the other? You are talking to a guy that posted that as an example of self defense.
As the burglar dropped his pickax and ran toward a nearby park, Meyer fired another shot "into the night" in the direction of the park.
he's honest - well, he's also a liar but honest in what his goals are right now - its refreshing, and the Democrats at his rallies roar with applause :(
yeah, you did. because half the time you don't even read the garbage fox news stories you post.
Yeah, we are talking about the 2nd shot into the dark after the person dropped the weapon and ran as being the problem.
Nice. Stealthy gets a win, by his definition now that the has moved the goal post and he has ignored that I initially ceded that this was all on a press report and nothing more so we were presuming for arguments sake the facts but not arguing that those facts were established even if the homeowner is only convicted of reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge, and manslaughter because he will not have been found guilty of murder. Even if after three criminal convictions he is also found civilly liable. and of course I never argued it was murder, just criminal. Good job by him again of ignoring, obfuscating, and moving the goal posts rather than simply ceding that one does not shoot into the night at unknown targets when a trespasser is fleeing. I am just glad he is not teaching any use of force classes to gun owners or firearms safety to youngsters. The instance presumed in the story is an example of what not to do, yet he defends it. Had the homeowner stopped after the first shot he would have a point, but the homeowner, by allegedly, his own admission did not stop there. I guess neither the homeowner nor Stealthy are capable of holding their wad when required. They just go off spraying into the night and on this forum.
As I said, he is not worthy of direct engagement since he violates all of the rules of rational discourse. I will indirectly mock him from time to time as time allows, but engagement, nope.
did you not read the article ?
if he hit anyone with that shot yes, that's a problem
It's a problem that he decided to fire at him as he was running, regardless if he hit somebody.
