How much truth is there to this gun story? - Page 4 - Snowboarding Forum

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donutz

No, you're a gun nut because you're strident, belligerant, irrational, at the extreme end of the subject under discussion, unwilling to consider alternative opinions, quick to cast aspersions at anyone who dares to disagree, and constantly invoking conspiracy theories to bolster your stance.

And trying to bait an admin into banning you so you could play the victim isn't doing much for you either.

There's a thing called "credibility". You can't threaten or browbeat others into giving it to you. You have to earn it. Or you can squander it, and it's damned hard to get back.

I don't think I've ever stated my belief here, quite the contrary I've posted that both sides are going for broke and there needs to be a middle ground.

My personal opinion is that a gun ban or magazine ban won't work. They need to beef up background checks to include medical records, and get rid of the private sales/gun show loop hole. They also need to stiffen penalties for laws already on the books. I don't see where I'm beligerent or irrational? What conspiracy theory? That Dianne Fienstein wants to ban all guns? She basically does, look it up for yourself.

I'm also not trying to bait anyone into doing anything, I'm not going to cower in fear though either. As a previous career firefighter in Chicago I think I know a thing or two about words like credibility.

linvillegorge · 01-02-2013, 03:06 PM

The only advice I have to anyone is that if you god forbid ever do have to use any type of force (deadly or not) against anyone for any reason, absolutely DO NOT say a word to anyone (especially a cop) about it without a lawyer present. Without full understanding of the law, you could say something that could potentially fuck yourself even if you were in the right.

jdang307 · 01-02-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

America is not England. It is a red herring that the NRA nuts use to scare gun owners with. Anytime REASONABLE gun regulation such as instant background checks or closing the "gun show loophole" is proposed, they tout it as the "slippery slope". They are nut jobs as much as the advocates of total gun bans are. Self defense is a legitimate reason for bearing arms and almost every state has written into their state constitutions laws protecting citizens from prosecution when using lethal force.

This case in England would also be problematic here in America based upon excessive force laws. In no state are you allowed to kill an intruder simply because they are in the home or to protect property. You better damn well be able to prove that your life was in danger or you are going to jail. A big problem with most gun owners in this country is that they are totally ignorant of the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. Plenty of Americans are also serving long prison sentences for killing an intruder but could not prove that their life was in danger. Too many people with a CCW think its a license to kill any criminal and their possession of a gun is actually a major liability. Protecting your property is not a justification of the use of deadly force in the eyes of the American courts either.

Just focusing on the bold. Are you sure about this? Texas let free a man who shot someone in the back who was robbing his neighbors house and was already leaving.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdang307

Just focusing on the bold. Are you sure about this? Texas let free a man who shot someone in the back who was robbing his neighbors house and was already leaving.

hahahaha I missed this! He's the one that called me out saying all states are different... what a crock of shit. I can't stand people who post shit (especially an admin) and are completely fucking clueless.

As I posted earlier, snowolf is clueless as to what he's talking about. I posted colorado state law with a link to the sheriffs website. A quick google search involving your state and "use of deadly force" will bring up information you are looking for.

jdang307 · 01-02-2013, 03:16 PM

Well I'm not going to go there, and didn't post for that purpose.

Me and Snowolf don't see eye to eye on politics but it's all good with me.

I only posted to provoke further discussion, clarification (and correction if needed).

It just caught my eye because the story out of Texas is so ridiculous. I mean, shooting a guy in the back who was leaving your neighbors house is crazy. I love Texas, but they're crazy.

Also a story a while back about a guy who shot a foreign exchange student just for being on his property. Foreign exchange student was lost and was looking for a party.

StreetDoc · 01-02-2013, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdang307

Well I'm not going to go there, and didn't post for that purpose.

Me and Snowolf don't see eye to eye on politics but it's all good with me.

I only posted to provoke further discussion, clarification (and correction if needed).

It just caught my eye because the story out of Texas is so ridiculous. I mean, shooting a guy in the back who was leaving your neighbors house is crazy. I love Texas, but they're crazy.

Also a story a while back about a guy who shot a foreign exchange student just for being on his property. Foreign exchange student was lost and was looking for a party.

I agree on all accounts. The truth is every state IS different, and it's up to you as a responsible gun owner to know the law in your state/jurisdiction. Whereas I posted the colorado law, and it favors home defense. I believe in Illinois you were expected to jump out of the window in your own house before you shot someone if you could.

Extremo · 01-02-2013, 08:03 PM

Does anyone realize how ineffective a gun is for personal protection? Just for the record, I'm anti-gun. I always hear the argument that guns save lives, that somehow gun owners are ready to go James Bond on every 'bad guy' as soon as they detect a threat. But it turns out that trained gunmen with thousands of hours of tactical shooting actually only hit their targets 20-30% of the time?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/ny...anted=all&_r=0

I find it hard for me to be convinced that the everyday gun owner with only occasional shooting practice is supposed to be equally (or even close to) effective as someone who's trained to do it for a living?

I also found this video interesting. Even after hours of training, which most ordinary gun owners don't obtain, when confronted by a gun wielding assailant, these people still aren't able to protect themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=8QjZY3WiO9s

You also have this. All 9 people involved at the Empire State Building shooting were hit by officer gunfire. They weren't intended targets. Again, this inaccuracy is by trained professionals. I could only suspect a non-trained gunman would have been even more remiss with his aim.

NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly

I'm not trying to be a dick. I actually agree with many of in this thread on most policy issues. But is being a gun owning society (and all that comes as a result) really worth a sub 20% hit ratio?

conspiracy · 01-02-2013, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpedoVegas

yeah that one sounds awesome... a guy shoots an adult and 2 teens (one of them in the face) instead of just giving up his wallet.... what a hero

be honest! if you had a gun in your pocket and someone pointed a gun at your face and asked for your wallet you wouldnt try to put a bullet btwn their eyes? HE HAS AN EFING GUN IN YOUR FACE!

conspiracy · 01-02-2013, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extremo

Does anyone realize how ineffective a gun is for personal protection? Just for the record, I'm anti-gun. I always hear the argument that guns save lives, that somehow gun owners are ready to go James Bond on every 'bad guy' as soon as they detect a threat. But it turns out that trained gunmen with thousands of hours of tactical shooting actually only hit their targets 20-30% of the time?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/ny...anted=all&_r=0

I find it hard for me to be convinced that the everyday gun owner with only occasional shooting practice is supposed to be equally (or even close to) effective as someone who's trained to do it for a living?

I also found this video interesting. Even after hours of training, which most ordinary gun owners don't obtain, when confronted by a gun wielding assailant, these people still aren't able to protect themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=8QjZY3WiO9s

You also have this. All 9 people involved at the Empire State Building shooting were hit by officer gunfire. They weren't intended targets. Again, this inaccuracy is by trained professionals. I could only suspect a non-trained gunman would have been even more remiss with his aim.

NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly

I'm not trying to be a dick. I actually agree with many of in this thread on most policy issues. But is being a gun owning society (and all that comes as a result) really worth a sub 20% hit ratio?

what are those small targets at long range? i hit 7 of 10 clay pigeons from about 30 yards out. when you have a gun and someone is ten feet away, you wont miss.

conspiracy · 01-02-2013, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdang307

Well I'm not going to go there, and didn't post for that purpose.

Me and Snowolf don't see eye to eye on politics but it's all good with me.

I only posted to provoke further discussion, clarification (and correction if needed).

It just caught my eye because the story out of Texas is so ridiculous. I mean, shooting a guy in the back who was leaving your neighbors house is crazy. I love Texas, but they're crazy.

Also a story a while back about a guy who shot a foreign exchange student just for being on his property. Foreign exchange student was lost and was looking for a party.

yea that crap is CLEARLY over the top

01-02-2013, 03:06 PM	#32 (permalink)
linvillegorge Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Evergreen, CO Posts: 4,540	The only advice I have to anyone is that if you god forbid ever do have to use any type of force (deadly or not) against anyone for any reason, absolutely DO NOT say a word to anyone (especially a cop) about it without a lawyer present. Without full understanding of the law, you could say something that could potentially fuck yourself even if you were in the right. __________________ "People say that marijuana smoking is going to get in the way of my career. I say to them that on the contrary, my fighting career is getting in the way of my marijuana smoking." -Nick Diaz

01-02-2013, 08:03 PM	#37 (permalink)
Extremo -LIFETIME MEMBER- Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: NH Posts: 3,122	Does anyone realize how ineffective a gun is for personal protection? Just for the record, I'm anti-gun. I always hear the argument that guns save lives, that somehow gun owners are ready to go James Bond on every 'bad guy' as soon as they detect a threat. But it turns out that trained gunmen with thousands of hours of tactical shooting actually only hit their targets 20-30% of the time? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/ny...anted=all&_r=0 I find it hard for me to be convinced that the everyday gun owner with only occasional shooting practice is supposed to be equally (or even close to) effective as someone who's trained to do it for a living? I also found this video interesting. Even after hours of training, which most ordinary gun owners don't obtain, when confronted by a gun wielding assailant, these people still aren't able to protect themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=8QjZY3WiO9s You also have this. All 9 people involved at the Empire State Building shooting were hit by officer gunfire. They weren't intended targets. Again, this inaccuracy is by trained professionals. I could only suspect a non-trained gunman would have been even more remiss with his aim. NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders, Says Ray Kelly I'm not trying to be a dick. I actually agree with many of in this thread on most policy issues. But is being a gun owning society (and all that comes as a result) really worth a sub 20% hit ratio? Last edited by Extremo; 01-02-2013 at 08:07 PM. Reason: Of course I'd fuck up the youtube imbedding

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-02-2013, 03:16 PM	#35 (permalink)
jdang307 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 2,075	Well I'm not going to go there, and didn't post for that purpose. Me and Snowolf don't see eye to eye on politics but it's all good with me. I only posted to provoke further discussion, clarification (and correction if needed). It just caught my eye because the story out of Texas is so ridiculous. I mean, shooting a guy in the back who was leaving your neighbors house is crazy. I love Texas, but they're crazy. Also a story a while back about a guy who shot a foreign exchange student just for being on his property. Foreign exchange student was lost and was looking for a party.