Another killing that could have been prevented

[syrenn]

Did she really have to kill him? Couldn't she have disabled him with non-lethal weapons such as mase, pepper spray, taser or stun gun and then held her lethal pistol on him while she called the police?

If you feel this strongly about it, call on politicians to give up their conceal and carry permits and call elitists like Michael Moore to give up their armed bodyguards ( aka possession of firearms by proxy). Surely they would agree with you???

it really doesn't give a shit.. its all just faux liberal rage.... since he is a self professed gun owner himself.

 

[Artifice]

Exactly, even if the police take 20 minutes, or longer, to arrive there is absolutely no reason to shoot an intruder, even if he is trying to kill you.

I just threw up in my mouth a little after reading what you just wrote. Did you really just say that even if an intruder is trying to KILL you, you have no reason to kill him in defense?????? While he is trying to KILL you, you are required to find a non-lethal way of stopping him from KILLING you??? And if it just so happens you die while trying to figure out how to be nice to the friendly KILLER and spare his life because hey, I'm sure he's a nice guy usually, then tough shit.

DAFUQ?! I hope for the sake of humanity you are kidding in some way. Please.

Sarcasm.

There really needs to be a font for sarcasm. I wasted some great forum a** woopin' on that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did she really have to kill him? Couldn't she have disabled him with non-lethal weapons such as mase, pepper spray, taser or stun gun and then held her lethal pistol on him while she called the police?

Maybe one day you'll have the same chance as she did. Let us know if you can how it turned out.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Break into my home, and I will assume the worst. And that person probably will not survive.

But that still does not address the easy availability of weapons of war to the crazies in this nation. All this flap-yap about people defending themselves in their homes does not address why we have had so many mass shootings by people with the assault weapons.

And never do the fools on this board suggest anything that would address this issue. Their only answer in more guns. Do we really want to have a nation in which everyone packs, and is looking for a fight? At present, in two years, death by guns will be more numerous than death in traffic accidents in this nation.

OK Rocks, what do you propose we do to address "why we have had so many mass shootings by people with the assault weapons"?

And be specific, please...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Break into my home, and I will assume the worst. And that person probably will not survive.

But that still does not address the easy availability of weapons of war to the crazies in this nation. All this flap-yap about people defending themselves in their homes does not address why we have had so many mass shootings by people with the assault weapons.

And never do the fools on this board suggest anything that would address this issue. Their only answer in more guns. Do we really want to have a nation in which everyone packs, and is looking for a fight? At present, in two years, death by guns will be more numerous than death in traffic accidents in this nation.

plenty of "fools" on this board have addressed the issue Rocks.....you just seem to look at the "fools" who don't.....

 

[Katzndogz]

If in fact, tasers, mace and pepper spray actually worked, the police would never have to shoot someone they already sprayed or tased and would never have to tase someone to death.

The best that could be said for non lethal weapons is that they work, sometimes. If the perpetrator is on drugs, they don't work at all. If there is more than one intruder it's not worth using the spray or taser at all. Even if it works, it will just make those you didn't use non lethal force on really really mad.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Exactly, even if the police take 20 minutes, or longer, to arrive there is absolutely no reason to shoot an intruder, even if he is trying to kill you.

I just threw up in my mouth a little after reading what you just wrote. Did you really just say that even if an intruder is trying to KILL you, you have no reason to kill him in defense?????? While he is trying to KILL you, you are required to find a non-lethal way of stopping him from KILLING you??? And if it just so happens you die while trying to figure out how to be nice to the friendly KILLER and spare his life because hey, I'm sure he's a nice guy usually, then tough shit.

DAFUQ?! I hope for the sake of humanity you are kidding in some way. Please.

Sarcasm.

and he is responding to a LaKoota post.....wait till you meet Dean.....

 

[Katzndogz]

Break into my home, and I will assume the worst. And that person probably will not survive.

But that still does not address the easy availability of weapons of war to the crazies in this nation. All this flap-yap about people defending themselves in their homes does not address why we have had so many mass shootings by people with the assault weapons.

And never do the fools on this board suggest anything that would address this issue. Their only answer in more guns. Do we really want to have a nation in which everyone packs, and is looking for a fight? At present, in two years, death by guns will be more numerous than death in traffic accidents in this nation.

OK Rocks, what do you propose we do to address "why we have had so many mass shootings by people with the assault weapons"?

And be specific, please...

The mass shootings are caused by those who are insane and known to be insane. We don't need gun control. We need crazy control because the crazies do not need a gun.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Break into my home, and I will assume the worst. And that person probably will not survive.

But that still does not address the easy availability of weapons of war to the crazies in this nation. All this flap-yap about people defending themselves in their homes does not address why we have had so many mass shootings by people with the assault weapons.

And never do the fools on this board suggest anything that would address this issue. Their only answer in more guns. Do we really want to have a nation in which everyone packs, and is looking for a fight? At present, in two years, death by guns will be more numerous than death in traffic accidents in this nation.

OK Rocks, what do you propose we do to address "why we have had so many mass shootings by people with the assault weapons"?

And be specific, please...

The mass shootings are caused by those who are insane and known to be insane. We don't need gun control. We need crazy control because the crazies do not need a gun.

But, but, but, if we have 'crazy control' we might hurt somebody's FEEWINGS....

 

[Papageorgio]

Did she really have to kill him? Couldn't she have disabled him with non-lethal weapons such as mase, pepper spray, taser or stun gun and then held her lethal pistol on him while she called the police?

Life and death situation and you are asking her to make the right choice? How about the intruder making the right choice? Did he really need to return and break in, did he really need to assault her, did he really need to put her in needless danger?

It's about responsibility, he was the aggressor, the attacker, he made his choices first. She is responsible for protecting herself and her family. He is responsible for not attacking, not going to her house to begin with.

 

[zeke]

You gun nuts want to act like this was some random act that the lady was prepared for.

Unfortunatley for you gun nuts, this was a typical case where the person shot and killed knew the person that shot and killed them. Happens all the time.

What do you think would have happened IF she hadn't been able to shoot him? Or shot and missed.
He would have taken the gun from her, shot her, her kids and himself.
Happens quite a lot. That's the risk you take.

But what does a domestic violence situation have to do with the gun nuts needing/wanting wannabe assault weapons? Didn't she shoot him with a pistol?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You gun nuts want to act like this was some random act that the lady was prepared for.

Unfortunatley for you gun nuts, this was a typical case where the person shot and killed knew the person that shot and killed them. Happens all the time.

What do you think would have happened IF she hadn't been able to shoot him? Or shot and missed.
He would have taken the gun from her, shot her, her kids and himself.
Happens quite a lot. That's the risk you take.

But what does a domestic violence situation have to do with the gun nuts needing/wanting wannabe assault weapons? Didn't she shoot him with a pistol?

She knew the guy was a nut job so she armed herself. Dont see a problem.
I dont see where it matters what kind of gun she used.
Pistol or semi auto rifle...it did the job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just threw up in my mouth a little after reading what you just wrote. Did you really just say that even if an intruder is trying to KILL you, you have no reason to kill him in defense?????? While he is trying to KILL you, you are required to find a non-lethal way of stopping him from KILLING you??? And if it just so happens you die while trying to figure out how to be nice to the friendly KILLER and spare his life because hey, I'm sure he's a nice guy usually, then tough shit.

DAFUQ?! I hope for the sake of humanity you are kidding in some way. Please.

Sarcasm.

and he is responding to a LaKoota post.....wait till you meet Dean.....

No shit.

 

[OKTexas]

I just threw up in my mouth a little after reading what you just wrote. Did you really just say that even if an intruder is trying to KILL you, you have no reason to kill him in defense?????? While he is trying to KILL you, you are required to find a non-lethal way of stopping him from KILLING you??? And if it just so happens you die while trying to figure out how to be nice to the friendly KILLER and spare his life because hey, I'm sure he's a nice guy usually, then tough shit.

DAFUQ?! I hope for the sake of humanity you are kidding in some way. Please.

Sarcasm.

There really needs to be a font for sarcasm. I wasted some great forum a** woopin' on that.

Takes some time, you'll learn.

 

[boedicca]

Did she really have to kill him? Couldn't she have disabled him with non-lethal weapons such as mase, pepper spray, taser or stun gun and then held her lethal pistol on him while she called the police?

Did he really have to ASSAULT her?

It's unbelievable the way morons like you always try to blame the victim who has the courage to stop/avoid being a victim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just threw up in my mouth a little after reading what you just wrote. Did you really just say that even if an intruder is trying to KILL you, you have no reason to kill him in defense?????? While he is trying to KILL you, you are required to find a non-lethal way of stopping him from KILLING you??? And if it just so happens you die while trying to figure out how to be nice to the friendly KILLER and spare his life because hey, I'm sure he's a nice guy usually, then tough shit.

DAFUQ?! I hope for the sake of humanity you are kidding in some way. Please.

Sarcasm.

There really needs to be a font for sarcasm. I wasted some great forum a** woopin' on that.

Who knows, between my sarcasm and your outrage, we might just have shown somebody how silly gun control laws are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You gun nuts want to act like this was some random act that the lady was prepared for.

Unfortunatley for you gun nuts, this was a typical case where the person shot and killed knew the person that shot and killed them. Happens all the time.

What do you think would have happened IF she hadn't been able to shoot him? Or shot and missed.
He would have taken the gun from her, shot her, her kids and himself.
Happens quite a lot. That's the risk you take.

But what does a domestic violence situation have to do with the gun nuts needing/wanting wannabe assault weapons? Didn't she shoot him with a pistol?

And, if she hadn't had the gun, he could still have killed them all.

 

[g5000]

Did she really have to kill him? Couldn't she have disabled him with non-lethal weapons such as mase, pepper spray, taser or stun gun and then held her lethal pistol on him while she called the police?

Ask a few women who have been victims of domestic abuse how effective that would have been in the long term.

He would not have been held for long, and the next time he would come at her better prepared, to her disadvantage.


.

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

He made his bed when he decided to break into her house and put his hands on her. Now he will lie in it.

She did what she had to do. I'm sure it doesn't matter much to her whether this got done with a gun or anything else. She wanted to protect herself and her family and when that's on your mind, anything can be a weapon.

 

[RoadVirus]

Did she really have to kill him? Couldn't she have disabled him with non-lethal weapons such as mase, pepper spray, taser or stun gun and then held her lethal pistol on him while she called the police?

Maybe she should've even let him beat her to death! And kill the kids too! Then we'd have the pleasure of paying for his trial and lifetime of jailhouse meals and clothing!

Typical Liberal. Berate the victim, coddle the criminal.